Case Law Details
ITO Vs Mukesh Champaklal Shah (ITAT Pune)
The definition of capital asset excludes agricultural land and certain criteria have been placed in this statue to qualify the land as agricultural land. The facts on records demonstrate that both the parties have accepted the land to be an agricultural land. The 7/12 extracts clearly demonstrates the fact that the land to be an agricultural land. The Assessing Officer though agreed the land to be an agricultural land but denied benefit of deduction u/s.54B of the Act to the assessee on the ground that the land was not used by the assessee for agricultural purposes for the preceding two years from the date of transfer of such land. The Assessing Officer has not conducted any specific enquiry to negate the assertions made by the assessee that the land was used for agricultural purposes. As per the 7/12 extracts, kharif season crops were grown on that land.
Though Revenue was taking the transaction as business income they have not brought in any evidence on record neither they have conducted any specific enquiry to show that it was business transaction. Therefore, exemption could not be denied to assessee.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
This appeal preferred by the Revenue and cross-objection by assessee emanates from the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeal)-II, Pune dated 28.03.2013 for the assessment year 2009-10 as per the grounds of appeal on record.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
