Case Law Details
Sh. Prem Chand Jain Vs ACIT (ITAT Jaipur)
The issue under consideration is whether the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) can be invoked in case of agricultural land where it doesn’t qualify as falling in the definition of capital asset?
ITAT states that, on reading of provisions of 56(2)(vii)(b), they find that it refers to any immoveable property. Further, provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(c) refers to any property, other than an immovable property. The meaning of the term “property” has been provided in Explanation (d) to section 56(2)(vii) where the term “property” has been defined to mean capital asset of the assessee namely immoveable property being land or building or both. It has been contended by the ld AR that all immovable properties of any nature are not covered in the definition of property. Only those immovable properties which are held as capital assets and is in nature of land or building or both are only covered u/s 56(2)(vii). ITAT agree with the contention of the ld AR that where the term “property” has been defined to mean a capital asset as so specified and where an immoveable property as so specified being land, building or both is not held as an capital asset, it will not be subject to the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. In the instant case, therefore, where the agricultural land doesn’t qualify as falling in the definition of capital asset, provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) cannot be invoked.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A), Kota dated 29.11.2018 wherein the assessee has taken the following ground of appeal:-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
