2017 (4) TMI 1335

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 10(37) and deleting the addition of Rs. 8031704/- made under the head long term capital gain without appreciating the facts of the case. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) has erred in law treating the Gair Mumkin land as agricultural land without appreciating the facts of the case." 3. The assessee is an individual who filed his return of income on 13/10/2010 declaring total income of Rs. 1 027 9530/- showing income under the head profits and gains from business and income from other sources. Subsequently return of income was revised declaring income of Rs. 1 842 7950/- on 24/03/2011 which was subsequently further revised on 20 firsts June 2012 declaring taxable ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... CIT (A) who held that that subsection inserted w.e.f. 01/04/2005 under section 10 (37) was to provide relief in respect of compulsory acquisition of agricultural land, being capital asset is defined in section 2 (14) wherein the compensation or evidence compensation has been received on or after 01/04/2004. The section does not stipulate that the exemption is available only when the agricultural land is compulsorily acquired on or after 01/04/2004. He further held that even the gair Mumkin land has also been certified by the revenue authorities as agricultural land and therefore it will get the benefit of the provisions of section 10 (37) of the. Consequently the claim of the assessee was allowed by the Ld. CIT appeal. Therefore revenue ag....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the case of the assessee, the land has been acquired on an earlier date. In our considered opinion, the reasoning put forth by the CIT (Appeals) is not consistent with the provisions of section 10(37)(iv). The said clause merely provides that the income ought to have been received by the assessee on or after 1-4-2004, which is not in dispute in the present case. Therefore, the condition prescribed in clause (iv) of section 10(37) is satisfied in this case." 7. Therefore it is apparent that the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the coordinate bench. The Ld. departmental representative could not point out any other contrary decision on the issue and hence, respectfully following the decision of t....