TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, no need to bring the income referable to the capital gains part of the transfer of the asset. - 238 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 2-1-2012 - SHYLENDRA KUMAR D. V., KEMPANNA H. S., JJ. JUDGMENT D. V. Shylendra Kumar J.- 1. The appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act") by the Revenue, seeking to raise the following substantial questions of law for our examination in this appeal : "1. Whether the appellate authorities were correct in holding that the land which is the subject-matter of sale is agricultural land as on the date of sale without taking into consideration the conversion of land to non-agricultural purpose and consequently recorded a per- verse finding ? 2. Whether the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... converted land, converted for non-agricultural use, and as per the per- mission granted by the competent authority, viz., the Assistant Commis- sioner in the Revenue sub-division concerned. It is, therefore, submitted that the Appellate Commissioner and the Tribunal should not have ventured to extend the relief to the assessee even against the assessee's own document, viz., sale deed, etc. 3. It is also sought to be submitted that even independent of the question as to whether the land had been converted for a non-agricultural purpose or had retained its agricultural character, but as it was within a distance of 8 kms. from the urban agglomeration of Bangalore city it is inevitably a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5A 5A 10G 14G 17G 31G 12G 2-6-2004 1,82,50,000 Total 23A 22G 2,32,50,000 in respect of the sale transaction dated June 2, 2004, it was taken as a sale of capital asset, as this sale was after the date of permission for non-agri- cultural use granted by the Assistant Commissioner, viz., after May 10, 2004, whereas the earlier sale transaction dated April 7, 2004, is held to be in respect of an agricultural land. We do not find the reasoning and the principle enunciated by the Tribunal for making a distinction as to whether the land was agricultural land or otherwise in the case of T. Suresh Gowda (supra) apply to the present case to be obnoxious or violating any stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
