| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 1745 (Luck-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 2(14)
Where assessee contended that only on a part of entire agricultural land, rice mill was installed, thus, CIT(A) was not justified in holding that entire agricultural land was used for rice mill plant as only the land beneath rice mill, was exigible to long-term capital gains.
|
Capital gains - Definition of 'Capital asset' - Part of agricultural land used for installation of rice mill -
Assessee challenged order of CIT(A) upholding gain on sale of agricultural land without appreciating that agricultural land is not an asset under section 2(14). Case of assessee was that CIT(A) failed to appreciate that only on a part of entire agricultural land, rice mill was installed. On remaining agricultural land, agricultural operations were carried out until date of sale and it was incorrect to hold that land ceased to be agricultural land for income-tax purposes. Held: The land was agricultural land, as depicted in revenue records. No contrary decision was cited. It was only the land beneath rice mill, measuring 8800 sq. ft., on which long-term capital gain was exigible. Contention of assessee regarding land of 700 sq. ft. covering his residence, was brought up only before Tribunal. It did not see light of day at any earlier stage before any of lower authorities, nor was there any evidence with regard thereto forthcoming. Therefore, this claim was not available to assessee.
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : Partly in assessee's favour
A.Y. :
IN THE ITAT, LUCKNOW BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|