https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93947 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. en-us Fri, 07 Nov 2025 08:37:28 +0530 Fri, 07 Nov 2025 08:37:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93947 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. Highlights Income Tax Fri, 07 Nov 2025 08:37:28 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93947