TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (9) TMI 687
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Authorized Representative, the same is, therefore, dismissed in limine. 3. Rival contentions have been heard and records perused. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer found that during the assessment year 2007-08, the assessee has shown Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) as under :- S.No. Particulars Qty/unit Purchase Date Sale Date Sale Value Acquisition Cost/FMV Cost Indexed LTCG 1. Shop at S-17, G-36, F-16, S- 7 to 9, G- 19 to 21 at Nirupam Estate 9 Shops 31/03/01 31/03/07 3131500 140000 178966 29525345 2. Duplex No.7, at Aryan Wings Hoshangabad Bhopal 1 31/3/90 31/3/07 800000 25000 75436 724564 The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has entered into two agreements with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tal gain Shop & Duplex at 2004-05 1475000 70000 101511 1373469 Aryan Was Shop & Duplex at 2005-06 1225000 85000 152629 1072371 Nirupam Estate Duplex at Aryan Was 2006-07 800000 25000 75436 724564 Shops and Offices 2006-07 3131500 140000 178966 2952534 Further, the cost of acquisition for the purpose of calculation of LTCG was arrived at as under :- Assts Date of Acquisition Cost of Acquisition Charged in F.Y. Value of Charged C/Fd to Next Year Plot at Aryan Was 25/2/1998 140000/- 2004-05 70000 70000 2005-06 Nil 70000 2006-07 25000 45000 Pl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... commercial duplex and shops. It was stated that in consideration of land the builder has agreed to give certain portion of constructed area which was given to the assessee from year to year. It was contended that assessee has not converted these lands into stock in trade and that even possession of these lands were also not given to the builders. In as much as only permission for development of land and construction of building was granted to the builder. It was submitted that such income should not be treated as business and not covered u/s 2(13) of' IT Act. The assessee also referred following decisions. (i) CIT vs. Smt. Saraswat Jaiswal, 264 ITR 358 (MP) (ii) CIT vs. R. Ramaiya and Others, 146 ITR 39 (Kerala) However, the Asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns and have gone through the orders of the authorities below and found from record that the assessee had purchased agricultural lands from time to time as and when the funds were available to her. The purchases were as under :- F. Y. Land measurement in acres/P.B. Cost (Rs.) Village 1989-90 0.30/76 16,800 Bawadia Kalan 1989-90 0.40/76 22,675 -do- 1994-95 0.30/76 50,500 -do- 1997-98 0.37/71 1,36,767 Ahmedpur Kalan 2000-01 0.53/71 1,48,680 -do- In the financial year 2003-04, the assessee decided to go for construction of houses on the lands at Ahmedpur. In respect of lands purchased by her in 1989-90 & 1994-95 in Bawadia Kalan, she opted to go for developing colony on the Bawadia land in the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and Offices Nirupam Associates 2006-07 31,31,500 1,40,000 1,78,966 29,52,534 The assessee filed return and calculated the net capital receipts at Rs. 356,77,098/- and after claiming exemptions, determined the net LTCG at Rs. NIL. 7. It is clear from the above narrated facts that the assessee had acquired agricultural land, since long back and the same was held by her as capital assets. Agricultural land was also used for agricultural purposes and during the assessment year 2003-04, the assessee had also returned agricultural income at Rs. 7,000/-. There is no evidence on record that while purchasing the land, the assessee had any intention to go for development of land for residential colony nor she had carried out any developme....