Tax appeal allowed: AO exceeded s.144C DRP mandate by introducing new findings and recharacterising non-resident receipts as permanent establishment i...
Anonymized petitioner gets partial relief: bank guarantee quashed, PVC-coated fabric released under reduced conditions while valuation proceedings con...
ITAT held that the land and building acquired in 2007 constituted a capital asset, not stock-in-trade, observing the taxpayer's immediate construction for rental, prolonged efforts to lease (including negotiations and advertisements), consistent disclosure as a capital asset in income-tax and wealth-tax returns, and a six-year interregnum prior to sale. The tribunal characterized the disposal as a forced sale due to financial distress and protracted vacancy rather than a premeditated business venture. Consequently, the profit is taxable under the head "Capital Gains" and the assessee is entitled to exemption under s. 54EC. The orders of the AO and CIT(A) treating the receipts as business income were set aside; AO is directed to assess as returned.
ITAT held that the land and building acquired in 2007 constituted a capital asset, not stock-in-trade, observing the taxpayer's immediate construction for rental, prolonged efforts to lease (including negotiations and advertisements), consistent disclosure as a capital asset in income-tax and wealth-tax returns, and a six-year interregnum prior to sale. The tribunal characterized the disposal as a forced sale due to financial distress and protracted vacancy rather than a premeditated business venture. Consequently, the profit is taxable under the head "Capital Gains" and the assessee is entitled to exemption under s. 54EC. The orders of the AO and CIT(A) treating the receipts as business income were set aside; AO is directed to assess as returned.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
