SHRI RAMESH CHAND AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1109/JPR/2019Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 November 2020AY 2013-141 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the denial of the deduction under Section 54B. The CIT(A) did not provide a finding on the contentions raised by the assessee regarding the use of the land for agricultural purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 54B for the sale of land. The CIT(A) denied this claim, stating that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory evidence that the land was used for agricultural purposes by him or his parents in the two years preceding the sale.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) correctly denied the deduction under Section 54B without addressing the assessee's contentions about the agricultural use of the land.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1109/JP/2019

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@
Hearing: 07/10/2020Pronounced: 11/11/2020

fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 07/10/2020 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 11/11/2020 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Ajmer dated 05/07/2019 for the A.Y. 2013-14, wherein the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the denial of claim of deduction U/s 54B at Rs. 2,17,39,680/- by incorrectly holding that assessee has not produced satisfactory evidence to show that the land sold was used by him or his parents for agricultural purpose in the two years immediately preceding the date on which the land was sold. 1.1 The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law confirming the above addition by not giving any finding on the following contentions raised by the assessee:

More judgments on Section 54B

All 814 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →