TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 280
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....consideration of Rs. 26.46 crores. In the assessment order, the AO observed that out of the 216 guntas of land, 199 guntas were relatable to nine HUFs of the Dappu family group and 17 guntas belonged to the assessee and concluded that capital gains arising on sale of 17 guntas of land was clearly taxable in the hands of the assessee. The AO observed that the land sold was located within a distance of eight kilometers from the limits of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and, therefore, was a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the IT Act. As the transaction of sale of such land attracted capital gains and as no return of income had been filed by the assessee, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. The assessee filed a retur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....................The issue of taxability of capital gains arising out of lands situated in a revenue mandal where no notif ication of the Central Government was available for that particular municipality in terms of section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act was considered in detail by the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Srinivas Pandit(HUF) Vs. ITO, Ward-74, Hyd. In that case, the land was situated also in Rajendra Nagar Mandal as in the appellant's case. The Hon'ble Tribunal held that in the absence of a specif ic notif ication for Rajendra Nagar Municipality, the agricultural land within the revenue mandal could not be considered as a capital asset for the purpose of levying the tax. In the case of DCIT Vs. Jasti Vayunandana Rao & Others, the Hon'bl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat similar issue came up for consideration before this Tribunal in ITA Nos. 1024 to 1027/Hyd/2011 and 4 others in the case of Gousia Begum, Hyderabad and others, order dated 16th January, 2012 wherein the Tribunal held as under:- "15. We have considered the rival submissions. We do not find merit in the contention of the assessee. The land in question giving rise to capital gain was, in fact, urban land though agricultural operations have been carried out on them. The assessee placed before the lower authorities pahani patrika, Certificate and details of electricity Bill/slab pass Book etc. We have held on that basis in earlier paras that the assessee derived agricultural income. But, the question still remains whether the impugned land....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r municipality of the District in which the land is situated". Further, capital gains arising from the transfer of agricultural land situated in municipal or other urban areas or notified adjoining areas will be liable to income-tax. In this view of the matter, and considering the facts and the circumstances of the present case, in our considered view, the lower authorities are justified in determining the land in question, as capital asset liable for income-tax. With regard to determination of cost of acquisition of the land disposed of, we are of the opinion that considering the proximity of the 11 ITA No.1024 to land to the city, it is reasonable to fix the value of as on 1.4.1981 at Rs.30,000 per acre, instead of Rs.10,000 determined....