TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1651X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he land in question was beyond 8 km from the municipal limit - on the daye of notification which is 06.01.1994, the municipal limit of Jaipur on Ajmer Road on which the assessee land is situated was up to ESI hospital - here assessee’s land is 16 km away from the ESI hospital - thus the land sold by the assessee is not a capital asset u/s 2(14) and no question of capital asset - Decided in favor of assessee. - D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 170 / 2016, D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 165 / 2017 - - - Dated:- 21-11-2017 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS For the Appellant : Mr. Daksh Pareek for Mr. Sameer Jain For the Respondent : Mr. Gunjan Pathak for Ms. Ishita Rawat JUDGMENT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n short the Act) declaring total income of ₹ 2,57,794/- under the head Income from Other sources as interest from bank on 27/09/2007. The case has been scrutinized U/s 144/147 of the Act. After recording the satisfaction U/s 147 by the Assessing Officer, he issued notice U/s 148 of the Act on 15/1/2010 for filing the return. It was submitted by the assessee in reply in response to notice U/s 148 that original return may be treated as return in response to this notice. Various notices were issued by the Assessing Officer U/s 142(1) of the Act and it was gathered by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had sold land on 30/4/2015 at village Sarangpura, khasra No. 399, 400, 403, 407, 409 and 149 total 2.33 hectare for ₹ 2,76,80 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rahalad and Smt. Prem Devi W/o late Sh. Narayanlal Sharma on 10/5/2005, Smt. Prem Devi W/o- Sh. Prahalad and Smt. Prem Devi W/o late Sh. Narayanlal Sharma on 11/5/2005 and Sh. Khetilal on 10/4/2006 for ₹ 9,84,000/-. The properties purchased are in the name of the other individuals of the family and not in the name of the HUF, therefore, the same cannot be treated as the application of funds eligible of the claim of deduction U/s 54B. Thus, the deduction U/s 54B is not allowable to the assessee in the HUF capacity. 4.3 Further in respect of the investment made in the name of Sh. Khetilal on 10/04/2006, the investment made can also be not treated to be the investment qualifying for the deduction U/s 54B as the investment has been mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. Counsel for the appellant contended that tribunal has committed serious error in following the decision of Coordinate Bench in the case of Dr. Subha Tripathi in ITA No.1129/JP/2011 for assessment year 2008-09 dt. 24.5.2013. 6. However while considering the matter, tribunal has observed as under:- 6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. The assessee sold the agricultural land on 30/4/2005 at village Sarangpura measuring 3.33 hectare (9.32 Bigha) for ₹ 2,76,80,400/-. The ld Assessing Officer has confirmed from the Nagar Nigam that the land transaction is within 8 km or not. The Nagar Nigam, Jaipur vide his letter No. 315 dated 13/12/2010 has given the dista ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
