https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395266 Land consistently recorded as closing stock and supported by objects covering purchase, development and sale of land was treated as stock-in-trade, so the surplus on sale was taxable as business income rather than long-term capital gain. The exemption claim failed because capital-gain treatment was not available and, in any event, the land fell within municipal limits, bringing it within the definition of capital asset under section 2(14)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Brokerage expenditure was also disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) for failure to deduct tax at source, as no material rebutted the TDS default finding. en-us Tue, 05 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 May 2020 12:45:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395266 Land consistently recorded as closing stock and supported by objects covering purchase, development and sale of land was treated as stock-in-trade, so the surplus on sale was taxable as business income rather than long-term capital gain. The exemption claim failed because capital-gain treatment was not available and, in any event, the land fell within municipal limits, bringing it within the definition of capital asset under section 2(14)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Brokerage expenditure was also disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) for failure to deduct tax at source, as no material rebutted the TDS default finding. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 05 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395266