https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447515 The ITAT Surat ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the nature of land sold. The AO treated the land as a capital asset falling within city limits and taxed the surplus as short-term capital gains. The CIT(A) confirmed this assessment. However, the ITAT found that the land was situated in village Lajpore, a rural area not within Surat Municipal Corporation limits. Despite the State Government declaring the area for industrial use, this did not automatically bring it within municipal limits without separate notification. The assessee provided evidence including Land Revenue Records showing agricultural use, Gram Panchayat certificate confirming the village was not under municipal corporation, and population census data showing less than 10,000 residents. The ITAT concluded the land was agricultural property, not a capital asset, making the surplus non-taxable. The appeal was allowed. en-us Wed, 29 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Dec 2023 10:40:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447515 The ITAT Surat ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the nature of land sold. The AO treated the land as a capital asset falling within city limits and taxed the surplus as short-term capital gains. The CIT(A) confirmed this assessment. However, the ITAT found that the land was situated in village Lajpore, a rural area not within Surat Municipal Corporation limits. Despite the State Government declaring the area for industrial use, this did not automatically bring it within municipal limits without separate notification. The assessee provided evidence including Land Revenue Records showing agricultural use, Gram Panchayat certificate confirming the village was not under municipal corporation, and population census data showing less than 10,000 residents. The ITAT concluded the land was agricultural property, not a capital asset, making the surplus non-taxable. The appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 29 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447515