Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (10) TMI 775 - AT - Income TaxAdmission of additional evidence – Held that:- There was no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) in admitting the additional evidence - Revenue has not raised any ground challenging the additional ground admitted by CIT(A) - After an additional ground is admitted generally the additional evidence can be admitted by CIT(A) while exercising his appellate powers - Additional evidence application is supported by valid application and reasons which are elaborately mentioned by CIT(A) in his order - AO’s objections on admission have been properly considered thus an adequate opportunity of hearing in terms of rule 46A was provided – Decided against revenue. Applicability of section 54B – Capital gain on transfer of land used for agricultural purposes not to be charged in certain cases - Held that:- Following the decision in Shri Ramesh Narhari Jakhad vs. ITO [1992 (2) TMI 178 - ITAT PUNE] in case of sale and repurchase of agricultural land sec 54B requires two years period - Further for the claim of exemption u/s 54B, it is not necessary that the land should have been used for agricultural purposes for full two years immediately preceding the date of transfer and that it is sufficient if it was so used in the whole of the preceding year and for some days in the year earlier to preceding year – thus, the exemption u/s 54B is available to the assessee. Land used by assessee or not – Held that:- The objection that land was not used by assessee himself is proved by the assessee from the fact that agricultural income has been accepted by the department - Besides in additional evidence a certificate to this effect has been furnished by the assessee - assessee used the land for himself in earlier years. Part purchase of land in the name of name lender – Held that:- Assessee can purchase a new asset or part thereof in the name of his wife - For this there are sufficient justifications like stamp duty rebate, social, security for ladies, as long as the funds are invested by the assessee, exemption cannot be denied – thus, the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against revenue.
|