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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the land sold by the assessee was agricultural land situated beyond the prescribed municipal distance so as to fall outside the definition of capital asset under the Income-tax Act, and whether the addition towards capital gains was sustainable.
Analysis: The land records, the Tahsildar's certificate, the sale agreement, and the surrounding facts showed that the land continued to be agricultural in character, had not been converted for non-agricultural use, and was situated about 9 kms from the municipal limits. On these facts, the land did not fall within the mischief of section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal also noted that the Revenue had accepted the identical position in the assessee's other year, and no fresh material was brought to justify a different view. The reliance on the purchaser's intended use did not alter the character of the land for capital gains purposes.
Conclusion: The land was not a capital asset and no capital gains arose on its transfer. The Revenue's challenge to deletion of the addition failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Agricultural land situated beyond the prescribed municipal limit, and retaining its agricultural character without conversion to non-agricultural use, is excluded from the definition of capital asset under section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and is not chargeable to capital gains tax.