2014 (5) TMI 6

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2007 declaring total income of Rs.2,83,434/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 24.12.2009 and the total income was determined at Rs. 21,51,360/-. Aggrieved by the order of A.O, Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) vide order dated 3.7.2010 granted substantial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds:- l(i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C1T(A) erred in allowing the income of Rs. 17,34,758/- on account of sale of land as Long Term Capital Gain instead of business income. l(ii) The C1T(A) erred in not appreciating the facts that the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of plot was considered as capital gain by the assessee. AO was of the view that the since the assessee had undertaken the development and construction activity, the income cannot be considered as capital gain but has to be treated as business income. He accordingly treated the entire profit of Rs 17,34,758/- received by the assessee as business income. Aggrieved by the order of A.O, Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) deleted the addition made by A.O. by holding as under:- 4.3 I have considered the submission of the ld. A.R. and facts of the case and find that the plots sold by the appellant during the year are inherited by him from his late father in the year 1979. The number of plots inherited is 56. In the year 1987, the ....