2026 (8) TMI 1479

X X X X Extracts X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X Extracts X X X X

....of transfer u/s 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3) In the registered sale document Agricultural land at Village Vaki Khurd, Tal. Khed was mentioned as Industrial Land as it was sold to non-agriculturist u/s 63IA of Maharashtra Tenancy & Agricultural land Act, 1948, which doesn't change the original character and use of land until converted as per provisions of law. 4) Without prejudice to above grounds in the registered purchase document the Agricultural land purchased at village Ambethan was mentioned as Industrial Land as it was acquired with future intention to convert the land from agricultural to industrial u/s 63IA of Maharashtra Tenancy & Agricultural land Act, 1948 until then the original character and use of land remains same as agricultural. 5) The agricultural land purchased at village Ambethan is still an agricultural land as no conversion has been done to the character and use of the land and hence exemption u/s 54B on acquisition cost land at Rs. 73,80,000/- be allowed against the agricultural land sold and treated as capital asset if any. 6) The Appellant has wrongly offered Rs. 2,15,973/- as long-term capital gains on sale ....

X X X X Extracts X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X Extracts X X X X

....T/2025, dated 26.09.2025. ii. Mr. Popatrao Dashrathrao Suryawanshi Vs. ITO in ITA No. 234/PUN/2024, dated 21.1.2026. Submission of Ld. DR 4. Ld. DR took us through the Registered Sale Deed and invited our attention to the fact that as per registered sale deed the impugned land was specifically for industrial use. The Ld. DR also invited our attention to copy of 7/12 attached with the Agreement wherein land is mentioned as "पड़". Ld. DR submitted that the land sold was not agricultural land as defined in section 2(14) of the Act. Ld. DR further submitted that the land which has been purchased by the assessee also classified as industrial land. 4.1 Therefore, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessment order may be sustained. 4.2 Ld. DR submitted that assessee has filed appeal against the order of Ld. CIT(A) passed u/s 250 of the Act emanating from assessment order dated 20.12.2017 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act. Assessee has not filed any appeal against the order u/s 263 of the Act. Therefore, assessee cannot plead at this stage that order u/s 263 is bad in law. Findings and analysis: 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the recor....

X X X X Extracts X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X Extracts X X X X

.... Quote, "17. In Commissioner of Income-Tax v. V.A. Trivedi 172 I.T.R. 95 a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, of which one of us (S.P. Bharucha, J.) was a member, considered this question again. In this case the assessee had purchased the land of an extent of seven acres in February 1966. The land was covered by the Nagpur Improvement Trust Scheme. In August 1966 he obtained permission to convert the said land to non-agricultural use. In June 1968 he entered into an agreement with a Housing Cooperative Society to sell three acres out of it. The sale-deed was executed in October 1968. In this assessment proceedings the assessee claimed that the surplus income arising from the sale of land was exempt from tax inasmuch as it was agricultural land at the time of its sale. The matter reached the High Court. The Division Bench referred to several facts established from the record. Some of them supported the assessee's stand while some others militated against his contention. The facts found in favour of the assessee were: (1) at the time of its purchase by the assessee, the Ajni land was agricultural land; (2) it had been under cultivation by the assessee till the date....

X X X X Extracts X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X Extracts X X X X

....,1966-67 and 1967-68 the land was admittedly not cultivated. Certain grass naturally growing thereon appears to have been utilised. So far as the year 1968-69 is concerned, there exists a good amount of doubt whether it was or was not cultivated. The appellant's case was that they raised 'loni' grass said to be used as fodder for horses. They relied upon the entry in Pahani Patrak in this behalf. The third member of the Tribunal (to whom the matter was referred on a difference of opinion arising between two members who first heard the appeal) found the following facts which are mutually inconsistent: (a) there were unprecedented floods in the Tapti river in the Year 1968 which rendered the said land useless for cultivation for a couple of months because of heavy accumulated layers of mud and slush; (b) the next monsoon sowing soon would have started in June, 1969 but even before that the land was sold in May, 1969; (c) there is evidence of agricultural cultivation and raising of 'loni' grass during the year 1968-69; (d) for a period of seven months from October 1968 to April 1969, the land remained uncultivated. In our opinion the above findings considered toget....

X X X X Extracts X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X Extracts X X X X

....ses under Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act an its sale soon thereafter and the fact that the land was not cultivated for a period of four years prior to its sale coupled with its location, the price at which it was sold do outweigh the circumstances appearing in favour of the appellants' case. The aforesaid facts do establish that the land was not an agricultural land when it was sold. The appellants had no intention to bring it under cultivation at any time after 1965-66 - certainly not after they entered into the agreement to sell the same to a Housing Cooperative Society. Though a formal permission under Section 65 of the Land Revenue Court was not obtained by the appellants, yet their intention is clear from the fact of their application for permission to sell it for a non-agricultural purpose under Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act. 21. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court was right in holding that the said land was not an agricultural land at the lime of its sale and that the income arising from its sale was not exempt from the Capital Gains Tax. The appeals accordingly fail and are dismissed. N....

X X X X Extracts X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X Extracts X X X X

..... Therefore, for all the reasons discussed above, assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 54B of the Act. Accordingly, ground Nos. 5 and 6 are dismissed. 15. Assessee has challenged validity of order u/s 263 of the Act. The present appeal filed by the assessee is against order u/s 250 of the Act passed by Ld. CIT(A). The assessee had never challenged order u/s 263 dated 30.03.2017. The assessee is precluded from challenging validity of order u/s 263 in the present proceedings which are arising from order u/s 250 of the Act. Therefore, ground Nos. 7 and 8 raised by the assessee are dismissed. 16. Ground No. 9 is general in nature, hence, do not require any adjudication. 17. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 24th August, 2026. ============= Document 1 607772 Long Term 1. Sale of Agricultural Plot at Waki, Date of Sale : 15/12/2011 Cost of Acquisition Rs. 4234000/-22/01/2007 with Indexation @ 785/519 Capital Gain Investment of Rs. 7380000 u/s 54 B(2)-Proposed investment Out of Sale of Agriculture Land, hence deduct 14000000 6404027 7595973 7380000 TOTAL LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS Por J.....

X X X X Extracts X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X Extracts X X X X

X X X X Extracts X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X Extracts X X X X

X X X X Extracts X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X Extracts X X X X

Previous Next

Contact Us At :

FAQs :

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

2026 (8) TMI 1479