https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331378 An exchange of a plot was treated as a transfer of a capital asset, so capital gains tax applied; the contention that the land was stock-in-trade failed because the surrounding facts did not show any land development or construction business activity. On valuation, the record did not conclusively establish ownership of the school building or the actual construction cost, so the valuation adopted under section 50C required fresh verification. The Assessing Officer was directed to re-examine the ownership and cost aspects and make a reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer under section 50C(2) after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. en-us Wed, 17 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Aug 2016 12:28:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331378 An exchange of a plot was treated as a transfer of a capital asset, so capital gains tax applied; the contention that the land was stock-in-trade failed because the surrounding facts did not show any land development or construction business activity. On valuation, the record did not conclusively establish ownership of the school building or the actual construction cost, so the valuation adopted under section 50C required fresh verification. The Assessing Officer was directed to re-examine the ownership and cost aspects and make a reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer under section 50C(2) after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 17 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331378