TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 1905
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act without adequate verification of facts available in the case of actual owners as well as on the web-side of Government of Gujarat. The order under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act be set-aside and quashed. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act without serving of notices on the appellant. The order passed without service of notice be set-aside and quashed. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be deleted. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, modify, amend or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal before hearing." 3. The assessee is an individual and did not file any return of income for the year under consideration despite selling an immovable property for consideration of Rs. 3,30,00,000/- whereas the stamp duty value of the said property was Rs. 7,12,04,081/-. Therefore, the case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (in short "the Act") was issued to the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (in short "the AO") provided many opportunities to the assessee. But the assessee neither filed return of income nor furnished any satisfactory sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e was not the actual owner and hence the Capital Gain was not taxable in the case of assessee. The Show Cause Notice u/s. 144 dated 05.05.2023 was not served on assessee as the assessee had left the house and therefore, notices could not be complied. The AO passed the order under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. While determining the Long Term Capital Gain by passing the Order u/s. 144 of the Act, the AO has failed to take care and due diligence in as much as the AO has not deducted the Indexed cost of acquisition. The land was originally allotted Block No. 78 and the process of Block Division was carried out and the Dy. Collector and Olpad Province by order dated 19.06.1986 in Order No. 789/86 sub-divided the land in Block No. 78-B and 7....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Municipal Corporation, Municipality or Cantonment Board and hence in terms of Provisions of Section - 2(14)(iii) (b) of the Act is outside the purview of the definition of the capital assets u/s. 2(14) of the Act. Since the impugned land is not the Capital Assets within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act, the resultant Capital Gain is not chargeable to tax. The AO failed to appreciate all these basis facts which goes to the route of determining the issue of taxation of Long Term Capital Gain and therefore, the order passed u/s. 144 of the Act is not only erroneous in law but also perverse and detrimental to the Interest of the Small Agriculturist Living in a Remote Village. Apart from the issue of distance u/s. 2(14) of the Act, the la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Vinod Nihalchand Jain Ltd. vs. ITO in ITA No.6156/Mum/2024 order dated 12.03.2025. 6. The Ld. Departmental Representative (in short "Ld. DR") submitted that on perusal of the sale deed, it was noticed that the impugned immovable property was situated in the area of Kosmada, which was falling within 8Km from the limit of Surat Municipality Corporation and hence the impugned land was a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act on the date of transfer of the said property. The impugned land was sold for a consideration of Rs. 3,30,00,000/- whereas the stamp duty value of the impugned land was Rs. 7,12,04,081/- thereby attracting the provisions of section 50C of the Act. The assessee also failed to furnish supporting docum....