9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... land into small extents and sold the same. It is also undisputed fact that the land is situated within the Municipal Limits of Serilingampally Municipality. Therefore, even though it is an agricultural land, it attracted capital gain tax Considering the decision of CIT vs. Kasturi Estates (P) Ltd [ 1965 (10) TMI 7 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] we are of the considered view that even in the instant case, the said decision holds good as there is no material evidence to prove that the assessee has ever intended to engage in any trading activity. Therefore, we hereby allow Ground raised by the assessee with a direction to the Ld. AO that the entire sale consideration of the assessee should be treated as capital gains. - Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Ld. AO further asked the assessee to furnish the documentary evidence with respect to the claim of deduction of Rs. 1,84,85,195/-. Since there was no response from the assessee and in the absence of any documentary evidence, the Ld. AO proceeded to make addition of Rs. 1,84,26,414/- rejecting the assessee s claim of deduction. Further, the Ld.AO also observed that the assessee has declared profit under 44AE of Rs. 3,60,000/- and arrived the net profit under 44AE at Rs. 3,01,219/- and the assessee was asked to furnish the details. Considering the assessee s no response and in the absence of any explanation, the Ld. AO made addition of Rs. 3,60,000/- u/s. 44AE of the Act. Further, the Ld. AO, in the absence of any documentary evidence in re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in para 6.2 of the appellate order that the assessment may be reopened for the AY 2017-18 to consider the above income, Ld. CIT(A) earned in confirming the addition for the AY 2018-19. 5. Ld. CIT(A) also erred in treating the income as business income when it is assessable under the head capital gains . It is submitted that evidence on record is clear that the agricultural land purchased by the appellant in the year 1993 was sold by him in 2016 after a long gap and therefore the income is assessable under the head capital gains . 6. Such other grounds may be urged at the time of appeal hearing. 4. At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative [ Ld. AR ] submitted that the assessee has not pressed the Grounds No. 2, 3 4. Accordingly, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture in the nature of trade and computed the income under the head business income . Therefore, the Ld. DR pleaded to uphold the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. 7. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record as well as the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has divided the land into small extents and sold the same. It is also undisputed fact that the land is situated within the Municipal Limits of Serilingampally Municipality. Therefore, even though it is an agricultural land, it attracted capital gain tax. The main contention of the assessee is that even though the assessee has divided the land into plots and sold out the same, the assessee s income should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
