TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the entire capital gains arising from sale of agricultural land were assessable in the assessee's hands or only to the extent of his one-third share, and whether deduction under section 54B was to be restricted accordingly.
Analysis: The assessee claimed that the land was ancestral property and that the sale consideration had been divided among family members, with one-third share each reflected in their respective returns. The revenue authorities treated the assessee as the sole taxable owner on the basis of the record, including the conveyance deed and mutation entries, and upheld taxation of the full capital gain in his hands. On examination of the material, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's position that the capital gain had been shown by him and his sons in the proportion of one-third each, and held that assessment of the entire capital gain in the hands of the assessee alone was not justified. The Tribunal therefore directed assessment of capital gains only to the extent of one-third as shown by the assessee and deletion of the remaining addition, with consequential effect to be given by the Assessing Officer.
Conclusion: The issue was decided partly in favour of the assessee; only one-third of the capital gains was to be assessed in his hands, and the balance addition was not sustainable.
TaxTMI 
