TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 346
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....015 on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in directing the Assessing Officer to assess the capital gains of the appellant as short term capital gains? (ii) Whether the tribunal was right in ignoring the contemporaneous notification No.9447 dated 6.1.1994? (iii) Whether the tribunal was right in classifying Bangalore as a non-urban area for the purposes of Section 54G when it was previously categorized as an urban area until 1990? (iv) Whether the tribunal was right in finding that an urban area such as Bangalore could be classified as a non-urban area for the purpose of Section 54G from 1990 and then once again be classified as an urban area f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessing Officer. 3. The Assessing Officer, however, by an order dated 31.12.2008 once again, reiterated the findings recorded in the previous order and levied a tax of Rs. 53,91,798/-. The assessee once again challenged the order passed by the Assessing Officer in an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 26.08.2010 affirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the tribunal. The tribunal vide order dated 31.10.2011 once again remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer maintained its previous order vide order dated 24.12.2012. The aforesaid order was upheld in appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide order dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that as per Section 54F of the Act, the capital gain should arise from transfer of capital asset gained from an urban area and to be shifted to a non urban area. In the instant case, the assessee has shifted from non urban area and since, the original asset itself was not located in urban area, the benefit under Section 54G of the Act is not allowable. It is also urged that the Notification dated 27.04.2006 cannot be applied with retrospective effect. It is also argued that intention of enacting Section 54G is to promote decongestion of urban areas and to balance the regional growth and with the aforesaid object the legislature by enacting Section 54G exempted capital gains on transfer of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rea for the purposes of sub-Section (1) of Section 54G of the Act. In exercise of powers under the aforesaid provision, the Central Government has issued a Notification dated 27.04.2006 and has declared Anekal where the factory of the assessee is situated to be an urban area for the purposes of sub-Section (1) of Section 54G of the Act. However, from perusal of the Notification no inference can be drawn that the same has any retrospective operation. The Notification comes into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette. 7. Section 280ZA of the Act was omitted by Finance Act, 1987 with effect from 01.04.1988. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has issued a Notification under Section 280Y(d) vide Notification d....