Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.55 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income Tax Ii vs Shri Harjit Singh Sangha on 17 September, 2012

Ito, Kotdwar vs Sh. Kalyan Singh Adhikari, Kotdwar on 20 April, 2017

In CIT-I/, Chandigarh Vs. Harjit Singh Sangha (2003) 217 Taxman 201, the Punjab & Haryana High Court observed in a case where the assessee sold his agriculture land in small size plots and the Assessing Officer charged tax on the profit "the ITA No.6231/Del/2016 7 said asset being held by the assessee cannot be said to be a business asset and its sale in small plots of land to different purchaser is not a adventure in the nature of trade, in the absence of the assessee having floated the same or divided its land for the purpose other than agriculture land. Further for converting the use, prior permission is required from the authorities and in the absence of any permission being obtained by the assessee from PUDA authorities in respect of the land sold, merely because the land is sold in smaller plots to persons, who intended its residential use, does not change the nature of land sold in the hands of the assessee, and it's taxability."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Surender Meena, 36, Pratap Nagar, ... vs Pcit-1, Jaipur on 21 July, 2022

• CIT Vs. Harjit Singh Sangha (2013) 217 Taxman 201 (P&H) (HC) (Mag.) Land purchased by assessee was registered in land revenue records as agricultural land and it was being used by assessee as such. Later on it was sold in small plots to different purchaser. No development of land was made by assessee prior to its sale. It was held that assessee's activity could not be termed as an adventure in the nature of trade and gain/profit arising from sale could not be taxed as business income.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 38 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Shri Suraj Mal, Alwar vs Income Tax Officer, Alwar on 1 May, 2018

Held that there was nothing to show that the land was purchased with the intention to sell at a profit, or with requisite intention, to bring it within the parameters of 'stock-in- trade'. The assessee was not a regular dealer in real estate. It appeared that the land was purchased in 1970, which was under cloud of land ceiling laws, and after that cloud was cleared, and other adjoining lands had been developed, and since the land was not yielding any return, it was decided to be sold in piecemeal, by earmarking plots but then nonetheless it would remain a disposal of the capital asset only and not a transaction of any 'stock-in-trade' so as to be described as 'adventure in the nature of trade'. Obviously therefore, it was liable to be taxed only as capital gain.' CIT Vs. Harjit Singh Sangha (2013) 217 Taxman 201 (P&H) (HC) (Mag.) Land purchased by assessee was registered in land revenue records as agricultural land and it was being used by assessee as such. Later on it was sold in small plots to different purchaser. No development of land was made by assessee prior to its sale. It was held that assessee's activity could not be termed as an adventure in the nature of trade and gain/profit arising from sale could not be taxed as business income.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1