2022 (7) TMI 636

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd issues are involved in both the appeals, we proceed to dispose of the same vide this common order. 3. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the facts relevant for the appeal in ITA No.168/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2014-15 are stated herein. 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are as under: The appellant is an individual engaged in the business of purchase and sale of lands. The appellant had filed return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 on 31.03.2015 declaring total income of Rs.3,50,400/- and agricultural income of Rs.3,08,000/-. Against the said return of income, assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 21.12.2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs.78,02,540/-. While doing so, the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g term capital gain in the context of provisions of section 54B. The only condition is that the land sold should be used for agricultural purposes in two years, which does not mean that the land should be used for agricultural purposes for whole period of two years as viewed by the Assessing Officer. In this connection, he placed reliance on the decisions of Co-ordinate bench in the cases of Majid Khan Nisar Khan vs. ITO (2017) 59 ITR (Trib) 68 (Pune), Ramesh Narhari Jahadi vs. ITO (1992) 41 ITD (Pune) 368 and Rajendra Bastimal Chordiya vs. ITO in ITA No.1295/PUN/2017, order dated 07.06.2019. As regards other contention of Assessing Officer that no agricultural operations were carried on whole of the land, it is contended that the part of l....