Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.55 seconds)Section 2 in The Advocates Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Manibhai Motibhai Patel vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat on 27 February, 1981
In the case of Manibhai
Motibhai Patel Vs. CIT 131 ITR 120 (Guj.), the Hon'ble High Court
held that in a case where the land was used for agricultural purposes
right from the beginning, the sale of land for house construction and
the persons of building projects in the vicinity of the land
was not material. It was held that the lands were agricultural land at
the time of sale and therefore, profit on the sale of land was
completely immaterial.
Commissioner Of Income Tax Ii vs Shri Harjit Singh Sangha on 17 September, 2012
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."
Sri M.S.Srinivasa Naicker vs The Income Tax Officer on 29 January, 2007
In the case of M.S. Srinivas Naicker V.
ITO (2008) 169 Taxman 255 (Mad.), the Hon'ble High court of
Madras observed that the chargeability of tax uls 45 arise only if on
the date of sale, the land in question retained it character as a capital
asset, which means, an asset which did not answer to the description
of capital asset and which is an agricultural land falling within the
definition of section 2(14) would automatically be outside of the
section 45. What emerges from all these case laws is that once it is
established that the land in question was held outside 8 kms from
municipal limits or even within 8 kms but no notification had been it
then even if the assessee divided the land into small plots and sold it,
the the nature of the land did not change as far as the assessee was
concerned and since it was not a capital asset, capital gains tax could
not be charged on the same. Applying the logic of the said judgements,
it is held that the computation of capital gains of Rs.10,59,411/- by the
A.O. on the grounds that the same had been declared by the assessee
in the return is not sustainable because the land was both outside 8 km
of municipal limits and no notification had been issued for kotdwar
plus there was evidence to indicate agricultural operation on the land.
Section 45 in The Advocates Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Commissoner Of Income Tax vs Shri Madhukumar N (Huf) on 28 March, 2012
In the case of CIT Vs. Madhukumar N (HUF) (2012) 208
Taxman 394 (Kar.) the Hon'ble High Court held that section
2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act covers the situation where the subject
land was not only located within the distance of 8 Kms, from the local
limits but also requires the fulfilment that the Central Govt. had issued
a notification under this clause for the purpose of including the area
upto 8 Kms. from the municipal limits, to render the land as a capital
asset. It concluded that in the absence of a notification issued under
clause (b) to section 2(14)(iii), the land could not be held to be a
capital asset. In the instant case, the A. O. has admitted that no such
notification has been issued for Kotdwar. Hence, the land could not be
considered to be a capital asset in that sense. However, the A.O. has
held that capital gain arose because the assessee was involved in the
plotting and layout of the land.
The Advocates Act, 1961
Cit vs Smt. Sanjeeda Begum on 25 February, 2005
The Hon'ble Al1ahabad High court in
ITA No.6231/Del/2016 6
the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Sanjeeda Begum (2006) 154 Taxaman 346
(All.) had occasion to consider a similar case. In that case the
assessee sold part of the land measuring 2888 Sq. Yards during the
Assessment Year in question to 12 different persons after
dividing the lands into plots, each plot having an area of about 200
Sq. Yards and the colony having been named Shiv Vihar Colony. The
assessee's claim that the land was agricultural land, was also situated
outside the municipal limits and it was not covered by the Notification
of the Govt. of India issued under section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the of the I.
T. Act, 1961 and therefore, no capital gains were applicable.
However, the Assessing Authority did not accept the plea as the land
was under regulated area of Saharanpur for which the Addl. Disti.
Magistrate had fixed a circle rate and it was situated near to
Saharanpur City and was in the proximity of building and building
sites. He took the view that agricultural land had been converted into
non-agricultural land before the date of agreement to sell and
therefore the provisions regarding capital gains were attracted. In
appeal the AAC, Dehradun accepted the plea of the assessee after he
came to the conclusion that the land was not within 8 kms of
municipal limits and were agricultural lands. The ITAT upheld the
conclusion drawn by the AAC. The matter came before the Hon'ble
High Court which held that "on the findings recorded by the Tribunal
that the land was agricultural land and stood beyond 8 kms of the
municipal limits of Saharanpur, it was not included in the definition of
capital assets as given in section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. Thus, there is no
infirmity in the order of the Tribunal".
Hyderabad Hi-Tech Park Private ... vs Ito, Ward-2(2), Hyderabad, Hyderabad on 21 December, 2016
Further in the case of Hamiks
Park Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ward-2(2), Hyderabad (2014) 41 Taxman.com 109
(HYD- Tribe), the Hon'ble ITA T, while examining the case of
assessee who was engaged in agricultural operation on land classified
as agricultural land in revenue records and transferred such land on
as is and where is basis to a developer held that since
the land was situated In rural area outside the municipal limits, and
since agricultural operations were being carried out by the assessee
on the said land and since it was classified as agricultural land in
revenue records, the said land did not come within the purview of
capital asset uls 2(14) of the I. T. Act, 1961 and, therefore, the profit
earned on the sale of land was agricultural income of the
assessee liable to be exempt from tax.
1