TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 380
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....trict Collector under provision of section 63 of the Mumbai Tenancy Administrative and Agricultural land Act, 1948 before sale of the land to M/s. Siddhi Developers, in which assessee himself was a partner 3. The issue raised by the Revenue in the above ground relates to the addition made to the income of the assessee on account of long term capital gain earned by the assessee from the sale of alleged capital asset amounting to Rs. 6,37,07,746/-, which was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). This issue is dealt by the Ld. CIT(A) at para 4 to 4.10 of his order. 4. A perusal of the above would reveal that in the facts of the present issue, which are discussed at para 4.1 to 4.1.2 of the order, the assessee was noted during assessment proceedings to have sold three lands to M/s Siddhi Developers being Land survey No. 108, 93 and 100 at Moje-Goraj, Taluka Sanand for a consideration of Rs. 3.5 crores Rs. 1.92 crores and Rs. 1.02 crores respectively. The assessee had claimed all the said three lands to be agricultural land and hence exempt from tax. The AO however, held that the land sold by the assessee was not for agricultural purpose and had been intended to be utilized for non-agricultu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ered agricultural income in its return of income filed, which fact is recorded at para 4.8 of his order, and further at para 4.8.1, the Ld. CIT(A) has noted that the assessee had demonstrated the fact of having earned agricultural income during the impugned year to the tune of Rs. 6,40,571/-during assessment proceedings by producing copy of agricultural bills to the AO, who had not doubted the genuineness of the same. The Ld. CIT(A) further noted, that in the case of other co-owner of the impugned land, Sh. Dipak B. Patel, the AO had made no addition in his order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) also referred to the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Siddharth J. Desai [1982] 10 taxmann.com 1 (Guj.), wherein it was held that permission u/s. 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, was obtained by the assessee to sell the lands to the society for residential purposes would not militate against the land continuing to be agricultural on the date of its sale, as the permission was obtained only about two and a half months prior to its sale. That therefore, till the land was held by the assessee its character ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imed to have received agricultural income of Rs. 6,40,571/- from parties listed at para 5.1 of the order. Since the said agricultural receipt was not shown as income in the return of income filed by the assessee, therefore, the AO made addition to the same as undisclosed income u/s. 68 of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the AO had made the addition only for the reason that the assessee had not disclosed the income as such in his return of income filed, though he had not doubted the genuineness of the bills evidencing the agricultural income earned produced before him by the assessee. He further noted that the assessee had furnished agricultural income of similar amount in the preceding three years also i.e. AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17, and further, found the agricultural income earned during the year to be recorded in his books of accounts. He accordingly, directed the AO to delete the addition made of the agricultural income received by the assessee u/s. 68 of the Act and further directed him to consider the said agricultural income while calculating the taxable income for rate purposes. 10. It is evident from the above, that the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which had given loan of Rs. 29.28 crores to Essem Infra Pvt. Ltd., and the assessee was Director of the said Company. 16.1. He further found, the assessee to have control over the management and affairs of the Company, noting that the assessee along with Sh. Dipak Baldevbhai Patel had attended 6 Board of Directors meeting of the Company, and the Company had been floated for the purpose of execution and development of residential-cum-commercial project in the name of Maple Tree and consequently, the decision of the promoters of Siddhi Group to exit the Company was a business decision and the consideration received, therefore, could not be treated as capital gain. The Ld. CIT(A) however, found the facts to the contrary. He noted, that the controlling stake in Essem Infra Pvt. Ltd., whose shares the assessee had sold during the year, was with M/s Ganesh Housing Ltd., which was the holding company of Essem Infra Pvt. Ltd. having 75% shares of the said Company. He noted this fact from the annual report of Essem Infra Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18. 16.2. He further noted, the fact of the control and management of Essem Infra Pvt. Ltd lying with M/s Ganesh Group on the ba....