Case Law Details
Dashratbhai Gopalbhai Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
We find that the assessee has successfully demonstrated that the land parcels situated as Adalaj does not fall within the meaning of expression ‘Municipality’ or ‘Municipal Corporation’ and therefore falls in exception provided in sub-clause (a) to Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. As stated on behalf of assessee, the development authority i.e. GUDA is a creation of statute. It cannot be equated with Municipal Corporation in the light of the ratio of decisions of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Murali Ldge (supra) and T. Urmila (supra) as rightly pointed out on behalf of the assessee. The provisions regarding aerial measurement of distance is applicable prospectively after the amendment by way of Finance Act, 2013. We also take affirmative note of the significant plea on behalf of the assessee that distance of 8 kms. from the Municipality has to be seen from the date of notification dated 06.11.1994 in the light of judicial pronouncements quoted above.
Hence, on objective analysis of the facts and law enunciated by the judicial pronouncements, we find that impugned land falls outside the ambit of definition of capital asset provided in Section 2(14) of the Act. Consequently, the capital gains arising on sale of agricultural land which is not a capital asset cannot be brought to charge under s.45 of the Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD
The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Ahmedabad (‘CIT(A)’ in short), dated 29.03.2017 arising in the assessment order dated 23.03.2015 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2012-13.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
