TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 300
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... work granted by State Government only for rapid industrial development of the State ? B] Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT has failed to appreciated the fact that the assessee company was enabled to buy and hold the agriculture land by making an amendment u/s. 63-1A(1) of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and the purpose of the amendment and the section was to allow the investor company to hold for the sole purpose of development of infrastructure ? C] Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT erred in treating the land which was approved by the State Government only for industrial purpose as stock in trade ? D] Whether on the facts and c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eme. The land was purchased in the financial year 2008-09 and 2009-10. In the financial statement of Respondent, the land was reflected as inventories, i.e., stock in trade. Therefore, Respondent did not take this land into account while computing net wealth under the Wealth Tax Act. According to Respondent, it was not an asset which is covered by Wealth Tax being stock in trade and excluded for 10 years from the date of acquisition. Notwithstanding the fact that Respondent had started preliminary work to develop a special township after proper approval of the Government and as per the sanction letter of State Government dated 9th August, 2007 Respondent was required to complete the work of development of special township within a period of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s expenses, which would mean Respondent was pursuing development work and hence land in question would not fall within the definition of 'Urban Land' being stock in trade and business asset of Respondent. 6. Appellant aggrieved by this finding of CIT(A) filed Appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT by its order pronounced on 21st June, 2019 and impugned in this appeal concurred with the finding of CIT(A). ITAT also held, and rightly so, that the explanation (1)(b) attached with Section 2(ea) of the Act clearly specified that any land held by assessee as stock in trade for a period of 10 years from the date of acquisition will not be included in the definition of 'Urban Land'. ITAT also held that as per Section 2(m) of ....