TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 108
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case of assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS and accordingly notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was issued to the assessee on 25-08-2010. During the period relevant to the assessment year under appeal the assessee had sold his rights in plot at Mundhwa and declared the proceeds arising there from as Long Term Capital Gain. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer held that the assessee had acquired rights in the plot through Development Agreement dated 31-01-1999. The intention of the assessee was to purchase the share in land and sell the same on profit. The purchase and sale of development rights in the plot are clearly commercial in nature, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....la M. Kulkarni created third party interest by entering into Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on 22-05-2006 with M/s. Esteem Construction Private Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "company"). As per the terms and conditions of the MOU all the 12 persons who had acquired rights in the land vide independent development agreements dated 31-01-1999, M/s. Esteem Construction Private Ltd. would negotiate and settle their claims. Since, the land was under occupation of tenant, the company also could not get the possession of land. The company filed Suit for Specific Performance in Civil Court against the land owners and others. The assessee was one of the defendants in the said Civil Suit. Finally, compromise was reached between the parties to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../PN/2007 for assessment year 2003-04 decided on 31-12-2014 to contend that mere nomenclature of the agreement for acquisition as a development agreement by itself is not conclusive to say that the intention of the assessee was to hold the land for business purpose. 3.2 To buttress his submissions that single transaction does not constitute business, the ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions : i. Saroj Kumar Mazumdar Vs. CIT, 37 ITR 242 (SC); ii. CIT Vs. Gajanana Enterprises, 314 ITR 247 (Kar); 3.3 The ld. AR submitted that compensation received on relinquishing of rights in a land is assessable as capital gain. To strengthen this contention reliance was placed on the decision rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Anil Kumar r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rious decisions and the documents furnished by both the sides. The assessee in appeal has challenged the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in upholding the order of Assessing Officer treating the gain arising on relinquishing of rights in the land as business income. It has been contended that the assessee along with other 11 persons had agreed to purchase land admeasuring 1H and 21 Ares comprising in Survey No. 83/A, Hissa No. 4/1 at Mundhwa. The vendors of the land had entered into separate Development Agreements with the purchasers. The said agreement was executed on Rs. 20/- Stamp Paper and is an unregistered agreement. The assessee at the time of execution of said agreement paid a sum of Rs. 1,18,750/- as against the tot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f assessment in the case of 10 persons namely (i) Mr. Deepak K. Bamb, (ii) Mr. Bansilal B. Raisoni, (iii) Mr. Rajendra B. Raisoni, (iv) Mr. Sunil B. Raisoni, (v) Mrs. Hemlata Raisoni, (vi) Mr. Pravin B. Raisoni, (vii) Mrs. Asha Deepak Bamb. (viii) Mr. Bipin U. Chopda, (ix) Mr. Amit V. Bamb and (x) Mr. Madam K. Bamb. A perusal of records furnished by the Department shows that assessment in the case of all aforesaid persons have been completed u/s. 143(3) or u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act. In case of all the assessees the amount received on relinquishing of rights in land situated at Mundhwa has been declared as capital gain. The Department has accepted the same. In such situation, we do not find any reason as to why in the case of presen....