Case Law Details
Rajendra Bastimal Chordiya Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
The issue in the present ground is with respect to the denial of claim of deduction u/s 54B of the Act for the reason that the land was not cultivable. We find that the reason for denying the claim of deduction u/s 54B of the Act was for the reason that out of the total area of 1 hectare 12R, agricultural activities were carried out on a portion of the land and there was no evidence of crop grown on the balance portion of the land. Before us, it is assessee’s submission that the entire land is one land and the fact that crop was grown in portion of land is not disputed. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Mahesh Danabhai Patel (supra) has held that provisions of Sec.54B of the Act does not specify that the entire land should be used for cultivation for claiming benefit u/s 54B of the Act. It held that if any part of the land is under cultivation for two years immediately two preceding years prior to the date of transfer, it would be sufficient to claim benefit u/s 54B of the Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
1. This appeal filed by the assessee is emanating out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (A) – 1, Nashik dated 01.03.2017 for the assessment year 2013-14.
2. The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under :-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
