https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780859 ITAT held the property was a capital asset, not stock-in-trade, rejecting the revenue's characterization of the sale as business income. The tribunal found the owner's dominant intention was investment for rental (post-construction attempts to let, consistent wealth-tax disclosure), the sale occurred after six years and was compelled by financial pressure, and exemption under s.54EC applies. AO and CIT(A) were directed to assess the profit as Capital Gains as returned by the assessee; the assessee's appeal was allowed. en-us Mon, 06 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Nov 2025 08:37:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780859 ITAT held the property was a capital asset, not stock-in-trade, rejecting the revenue's characterization of the sale as business income. The tribunal found the owner's dominant intention was investment for rental (post-construction attempts to let, consistent wealth-tax disclosure), the sale occurred after six years and was compelled by financial pressure, and exemption under s.54EC applies. AO and CIT(A) were directed to assess the profit as Capital Gains as returned by the assessee; the assessee's appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 06 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780859