TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2(14) does not hold water in the light of the notification issued by the Central Government as the provision itself empowers the Central Government to prescribe the agricultural land situated at such a distance, having regard to the extent, and scope of urbanization of that area and other relevant consideration and, therefore, it is apparent that the land of the appellant falls within 5 kms of the municipal limits which included in the definition of capital assets chargeable to tax. The said findings were affirmed by CIT(A) and the Tribunal. No illegality or perversity could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the authorities below. - Decided against assessee. Allowance o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here the ld. Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) has treated the sale of agriculture land as long term capital gain tax and made an addition of ₹ 77,95,760/- to the returned income tax of the assessee. B. Whether the Hon ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the decision of Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) and treating the agricultural land situated in rural area approximately 4 kilometres away from outer limits of municipality as capital asset in terms of section 2(14(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. C. Whether the Hon ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ld. Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer all have wrongly ignored the report of Naib Tehsildar of Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the capital asset. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the paper book. 5. A perusal of the records shows that the Assessing Officer found that the agricultural land sold by the assessee was situated within 4 kms of the municipal limits of Thanesar City. According to notification of the Central Government, the agricultural land situated beyond 5 kms of the municipal limits was liable to be excluded from the definition of capital asset chargeable to tax. On that basis, the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the land of the assessee was not an agricultural land, rather urban land in nature. Even the argument of the assessee that any kind of rural land is excluded from the scope of definition of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC)? 8. We proceed to decide CM No.23847-CII of 2018 wherein additional substantial questions of law have been claimed. In so far as additional substantial questions of law at Sr.No.(II) is concerned, there is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law enunciated therein. However, the applicability of the legal position is required to be examined in the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, the assesseeappellant having lost before the Assessing Officer, CIT(A), and the Tribunal has now sought to raise an issue that the assessee would be entitled to benefit of provisions of Section 54F of the Act as there was an investment made in the residential house. A perusal of the order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
