2023 (4) TMI 22

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eturn of Income for the assessment year 2011-12 was filed on 30.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs.5,30,35,008/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-5, Pune ('the Assessing Officer') vide order dated 28.03.2014 at a total income of Rs.10,31,85,008/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer assessed the profit arising on sale of land situated at Gat No.746, 84R Gunta, Sanaswadei, Tal. Shirur, Dist. Pune sold for a consideration of Rs.5 crores under the head "Income from business". The brief facts of the subject matter of appeal is set out by the Assessing Officer in para 5.1 of the assessment order. It was claimed that the said land was an agricultural land placing r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....enue is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. Before us, the Revenue challenges the findings of the ld. CIT(A) that the profit arising on sale of land should not be assessed under the head "Income from capital gains" as against the profit arising on sale of land under the head "Income from profits and gains of business" and also in allowing the cost of construction of the shed as cost of acquisition. It is further stated before us that the appeal filed by the assessee challenging the findings of the ld. CIT(A) that property sold is not agricultural land stands settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. Therefore, the issue what the asset sold was an agricultural land does not survive for consideration. As regards to the iss....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the asset sold in question was bought in the year 1997 and the industrial shed was constructed for the purpose of giving the said property on rent and the rental income earned on the said property/shed was assessed under the head "Income from house property". This fact clearly establishes that the intention of the respondent-assessee is to hold the asset as "capital asset". Therefore, we do not find any fallacy in the findings of the ld. CIT(A) in holding that the asset sold was a capital asset. Accordingly, this ground of appeal nos.1, 2 stands dismissed. 8. Ground of appeal nos.3 and 4 challenges the findings of the ld. CIT(A) in allowing the cost of improvement, it is contended that the ld. CIT(A) had fell in serious error in allowing ....