TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (9) TMI 1133
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iolation of section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act. 2. The Assessing officer has wrongly concluded the fact that the subject matter of asset sold, is not agricultural land (at para 5.7 of his order) 3. The Hon'ble CIT(A) failed to appreciate the documentary evidence of local Government declaring the subject land as agricultural land, on the contrary accepted the hypothetical conclusion of assessing officer that the land is not agricultural land. 4. The extension of local limits by the local government cannot override the notification of central government. 5. Both the assessing officer and Hon'ble CIT(A) have arbitrarily adopted the cost of land at Rs. 35/- as against Rs. 70/- duly supported by appellant. 6. For any other ground or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....losed an income of Rs. 26,06,843/- only which represented interest income received from bank deposits. After scrutinizing, the assessing officer came to the following conclusions: (i) The land sold by the appellant was situated within the area of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (GVMC). The limits of the GVMC were extended by G.O. Ms.No.938, dt.21.11.2005 vide which the Grampanchayat of Paradesipalem was covered within the limits of GVMC. Thus, the assessing officer was of the view that the appellant's land fell within the definition of capital asset as defined in sec.2(14). (ii) The appellant's contention that in the absence of any notification by the Government of India u/s 2(1A) and 2(14)(iii), the appellant's land canno....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d sale deed there is no indication of any such transactions relatable to agricultural produce. Relying upon the decision in the case of Tarajan Tea Company (P) Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Incometax reported in 227 ITR 649, the assessing officer observed that the lump-sum consideration for sale of land and standing trees is liable to capital gains. Further, relying upon in the case of Raja Binoykumar Sahas Roy reported in 32 ITR 466, the assessing officer observed that the requisite ingredients of agricultural operation were missing in the appellant's case. He stated that the mango and coconut trees etc., which were claimed to have been transferred may be treated as usufruct from land or trees of spontaneous growth since there are no history of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he impugned land as a capital asset and computed the long term capital gain. 6. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand has submitted that the impugned land is admittedly situated within the municipal limit of the GVMC. Therefore, assessee's case falls within the purview of clause (a) of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and the land which falls within the municipal limit, no notification from the central government is required to notify that the agricultural land which falls within the extended limit of a municipality cease to be the agricultural land. Our attention was invited to both the clauses of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. The Ld. D.R. further contended that since the impugned land is situated within the municipality limit of GVMC, the reven....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al laws cannot supersede the central laws. But we do not find any force in this argument because the municipality or the cantonment board are subject to local laws and within a state subject and are created by a notification by the state government. Central government has no jurisdiction to create a municipality, cantonment board in any state of the country. Central government is concerned with the central act. Once the municipality of the cantonment board is created by a notification by the state government as per local laws, the central act will apply. Therefore once the impugned land is situated within the jurisdiction of the local limit of the GVMC, the impugned land cease to be the agricultural land and on its sale capital gain is to b....