TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 370
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....') 2009-10. 2. The Appellant/Assessee was incorporated on 15th December, 1986. There was a change of management on 29th May, 2005. According to the Assessee, by a resolution of its Board of Directors dated 24th October, 2005 it decided to commence the business of dealing in immovable property in terms of Clauses 45 and 46 of "Other Objects" of the Memorandum of Association ('MOA'). Clauses 45 and 46 of the MOA read as under: "45. To acquire by purchase, exchange, hire or otherwise and mortgage let on hire or dispose of lands and property of any tenure or interest in the same. 46. To erect and construct houses, buildings or works of every description on any land of the company or upon any other lands or property and to pull down, re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ber, 2011, the Assessing Officer ('AO') made an addition of Rs. 39,04,000 invoking Section 50C of the Act. The AO rejected the Assessee's stand that the property in question which was sold had been held by it as 'stock in trade'. In particular, the AO noted that the said plot had been shown to be purchased by the Assessee on 1st March, 2006 for Rs. 30 lakhs. It was sold three years later at the same price. However, the value of the property calculated as per the circle rate worked out to Rs. 69,04,000. The AO concluded that the Assessee had shown its assets as 'stock in trade' in order to avoid Section 50C of the Act. The reply given by the Assessee was vague and unacceptable. Accordingly, the plot of land was treated as investment of the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....usiness of casting, fabrication, cold or hot rolling, re-rolling, sheeting, stamping, pressing etc. of all kinds of steel and other metals. In that view of the matter, it was held that the Assessee had sold the property in question only as an investor. The appeal was, accordingly, dismissed. 9. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Assessee and Mr. Ashok Manchanda, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue. 10. The categorical factual finding in the assessment order of the AO that the plot was sold for Rs. 30 lakhs whereas the value of the property at the time of sale calculated using the circle rate as Rs. 69,04,000 was unable to be satisfactorily controverted by the learned cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enuineness of the sale of the property as 'stock in trade'. 12. Learned counsel for the Assessee sought to rely on the decisions in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Limited (1975) 100 ITR 706 (SC) and the decisions in Commissioner of Income Tax-II v. Kan Construction and Colonizers (P) Ltd. (2012) 20 taxmann.com 381 (All.); Commissioner of Income Tax v. Thiruvegadam Investments (P) Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 345 (Madras); Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mukesh & Kishor Barot Co-owners (2013) 33 taxmann.com 87 (Gujarat) and Commissioner of Income Tax (Central ) v. Express Securities (P) Ltd. (2013) 40 taxmann.com 427 (Delhi). 13. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Limited (supra) th....