TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (7) TMI 978
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... long term capital gain at ₹ 62,73,636/- and further erred in holding that the assessee is not entitled to exemption u/s 54B of the Act. 2. During hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee, Shri S.S.Deshpande contended that the impugned lands, sold by the assessee, are beyond the prescribed municipal limit of 8 kms. To substantiate its claim, the ld. Counsel for the assessee invited our attention to the municipal map by claiming that the village Umari Kheda is situated beyond 8 kms from village Limbodi which is 2 kms away from the municipal limit by claiming that the impugned land is located approximately 10 kms from the municipal limit. The ld. Counsel for the assessee also invited our attention to a certificate issued by village Pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd belonging to the assessee within the meaning of s. 2(14)(iii)(b) has to be measured in terms of the approach by road and not by the straight line distance on horizontal plane or as per crow's flight." 3.3 Accordingly, the A.O. is directed to consider the appellant's case in the light of the above decision to determine whether the impugned land is a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) or not and give relief, if due." 3. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully considered the same. The learned DR although vehemently relied on the order of the Assessing Officer but could not submit any case law contrary to the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Satinder Pal Singh, 33 DTR 281 (supra). The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es Act. This method followed by the concerned authorities as per the suggestion given by the learned CIT, Rohtak to measure the distance has been challenged by the learned counsel for the assessee relying on the decision of Mumbai Bench of ITAT in the case of Laukik Developers vs. DCIT; 105 ITD 657 wherein it was held, following the decision of Pune Tribunal in the case of Mangalam Inorganics Pvt. Ltd. That the distance between the municipal limits and assessee's industrial undertaking is to be measured having regard to the shortest road distance and not as per the crow's flies i.e., a straight line distance as canvassed by the Revenue. The learned DR has contended in this regard that the said decision has been rendered by the Mumbai Bench ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entative must be present while measuring the distance on a mutually agreed date. Therefore, this ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 6. The next ground is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of ₹ 1,07,398/- made u/s 14A of the Act. At the outset, the learned Senior DR contended that there is no merit in this issue. However, on perusal of record and after hearing the submissions, we find that the assessee claimed to have received dividend of ₹ 44,941/- and claimed the same to be exempt u/s 10(34) of the Act. In response to a specific query, it was claimed by the assessee that no such expenses were claimed in respect of exempt income/dividend income. We find that at page 7 of the i....