Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (7) TMI 220

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dispute with regard to nature of land, because in the revenue records, the land has been classified as agricultural land. The assessee has also furnished various evidences to prove that his father has carried out agricultural operations for many years. The only dispute with regard to distance in which such land is situated from the limits of Chennai Municipal Corporation and from which date said distance has been extended to the village in which impugned land is situated. The assessee claims that village in which impugned land situated was included in the Chennai City Corporation limits from 19.07.2011 onwards, whereas the Revenue claims that place has been included within Chennai City Corporation limits on 09.11.2010 itself. In case, th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of submissions in 2015 and again on 29-11- 2016 that the lands sold were ancestral agl.lands and proof by way of (1) partition deed dt.25-7-1967, (2) 1-7- 1985 (3) and settlement deed dt.4-12-2008, having been filed, and the A/O having agreed that appellant inherited ancestral lands [vide para 3.1 of the asst.order], has erred in assessing the LTCG in the status of individual instead of HUF . 2. Without prejudice to the above, Contrary to facts and in spite of evidence filed Authorities below erred in rejecting the claim of the appellant that the land sold were agl.lands and hence LTCG is not exigible to tax. 3. Authorities below erred in not allowing, fully, claim of the appellant u/s 54F of the Act. 3. Brief facts of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f land. Further, the Assessing Officer has admitted fresh claim made by the assessee towards deduction claimed towards section 54F of the Act for purchase and construction of house property, however, allowed relief only in respect of purchase of plot of land and rejected cost of construction incurred by the assessee for the purpose of house property. The assessee carried matter in appeal before the first appellate authority, but could not succeed. The learned CIT(A), for the reasons stated in his appellate order dated 30.10.2017 rejected contention of the assessee and sustained additions made by the Assessing Officer towards computation of long term capital gain solely on the ground that impugned land capital asset as defined u/s.2(14) of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... included within the jurisdiction of Chennai Municipal Corporation. Further, the land sold by the assessee is within limits of Chennai City Municipal Corporation and thus, the Assessing Officer has rightly held that although, lands sold by the assessee is classified as agricultural land in revenue records, because it is situated within limits of Chennai City Corporation, same comes under definition of capital asset as defined u/s.2(14) of the Act, and thus, rightly computed capital gains on sale of property. 6. We have heard both the parties, perused material available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to nature of land sold by the assessee. In fact, the Assessing Officer himself .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ly dispute with regard to distance in which such land is situated from the limits of Chennai Municipal Corporation and from which date said distance has been extended to the village in which impugned land is situated. The assessee claims that village in which impugned land situated was included in the Chennai City Corporation limits from 19.07.2011 onwards, whereas the Revenue claims that place has been included within Chennai City Corporation limits on 09.11.2010 itself. In case, the G.O referred to by the Assessing Officer is correct, then nature of land has to be examined with reference to said G.O. and distance of the place to determine nature of the asset. In case G.O. referred to by the assessee is correct, then impugned land in quest .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates