Case Law Details
DCIT Vs. Kushal Infraproject Industries India Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)
The assessee has admittedly sold the agricultural land as it is so there were no intention to do any business activity, therefore, period of holding would not be relevant. The intention of the assessee is therefore clear that assessee purchased the agricultural land and sold the agricultural land as it is. The assessee never treated the said agricultural land as stock in trade and never converted into non agricultural land. The assessee did not create any plot in the said land and no developmental activities have been done and no facilities have been provided. The assessee did not make any advertisement for sale of the land. The character of the land in the hands of assessee as agricultural land has not changed. The agricultural land in question is classified in revenue record as agricultural land and actual cultivation was done as per the record. The AO has not produced any evidence on record to show agricultural land was used for nonagricultural purposes. The AO has also not brought information/evidence on record. The assessee had been carried on activities of buying and selling of the land in a systematic and regular manner. It is well settled Law that Certificate of the Tehsildar and Patwari who are the designated Officers and is Competent Authority and are authorised to issue Certificate measuring distance from Municipal Limits which relevant.
Since the land in question is dealt by Delhi Land Reforms Act and nothing is brought on record of violation of the aforesaid provisions and the Competent Authority under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, Certified that the lands in question falls beyond 8 KM from the Municipal Limits, therefore, there is nothing wrong in the findings of the Ld CIT(A) in holding that land in question is agricultural land and amount earned on sale of the land to be capital receipt. The decisions relied upon by the Learned D.R. would not support the case of the Revenue. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Learned CIT(A) in allowing the claim of assessee.
Fees paid to the Registrar of Companies for enhancement of capital is capital expenditure
Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT, 225 ITR 792 and Brooke Bond India 225 ITR 798, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that since expenses incurred in connection with the issue of shares with a view to increase its share capital was directly related to expenditure expansion of capital base of the company was capital expenditure even though it might incidentally help in company’s business. The issue was decided against the assessee. Ld Counsel for the Assessee did not dispute the above legal proposition.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
