2013 (10) TMI 1035

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the light of the judgment of the hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Anjana Sehgal in ITA No. 276 of 2004-since reported in [2013] 355 ITR 294 (P & H), according to which, the land sold was urban land situated in specified area of any municipality.              (ii) Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the distance is to be measured from the municipality limits of Pathankot town only and not from the municipal limit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Pathankot, therefore, the municipal limits of Pathankot are relevant to determine whether the land is capital asset or not. It was found that the land is not within 8 kms of the Municipal Council Pathankot, thus the land is not an capital asset. Such order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was affirmed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") on May 10, 2012. It is the said order which is dispute in the present appeals by the Revenue. Learned counsel for the Revenue relies upon an order passed by the Division Bench of this court in CIT v. Smt. Anjana Sehgal ITA No. 276 of 2004, decided on March 1, 2011-since reported in [2013] 355 ITR 294 wherein it has been held that the land situated within the....