9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 902X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l land and hence, the enhanced compensation received was taxable as long term capital gain. 3. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the said land was an agricultural land and since it was outside the municipal limits, the said land did not constitute a capital asset and hence, the enhanced compensation received for the compulsory acquisition prior to 06/01/1994 was not taxable as long term capital gain. 4. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the said land was allotted to the assessee's father by Govt. of India because he was a refugee from Pakistan, there was no cost to the assessee nor the cost of acquisition was determinable and hence, the capital gains were not taxable. 5. Without p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order of the Assessing Officer. Same has been opposed before us. 4. The first three issues are against CIT(A) in holding that land situated at Village Kharghar was capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act. Though the land in question was agricultural land as per revenue records, but land in question was located 6.2 km. from Panvel city. Taking all facts and circumstances into consideration, CIT(A), vide para 21, held that lands under reference are capital assets and not agricultural land within the meaning of section 2(14)(iii) as claimed by the assessee. This reasoned finding of the CIT(A) need no interference from our side. Assessee fail on this account. 5. Second issue before us as raised in Grounds No.4 and 5, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esentative supported the order of the CIT(A) on both accounts that land is situated at Village Kharghar was capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act and enhanced compensation on the same was liable for capital gain as per relevant provisions of Income Tax Act. 6. After going through the above submissions and material on record, we find that the ITAT Pune Bench 'A' in the case of Pashu Mohammed Zainuddin (supra) has decided similar issue in favour of the assessee by observing as under: "4. We find that for charging of capital gain, the assets referred to in section 45 of the Act have to be such, in the acquisition of which, the assessee had incurred a cost. Admittedly, the assessee has not incurred any cost for acquisit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of asset because the same was allotted to the assessee's father by Government of India being refugee from Pakistan at relevant point of time. We also find that Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Manoharsinghji P. Jadeja (supra), wherein the assessee sold inherited property which was acquired by forefathers by conquest. The property did not have any cost of acquisition. Capital gain was held not assessable in respect of sale of such properties. Provisions relating to deeming cost of acquisition was held at nil for the purpose of computation of capital gain because deeming provision applies only to the specified item. Though provision of section 45 of the Act is charging section, the legislation has enacted detailed provisions in orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
