RAM KISHAN,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3025/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 March 2022AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal is issuing a corrigendum to a previous order dated 10th March, 2022. The corrigendum specifically addresses paragraph 23 of the earlier order, which dealt with the distance of demised agricultural lands from municipal limits.

What were the facts?

The appeals concern the assessment year 2010-11 and involve multiple assessees who are sons of the late Shri Ram Singh. The core issue revolves around the agricultural lands owned by the assessees.

What were the issues?

The primary issue concerns whether the agricultural lands in question are considered capital assets under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on their proximity to municipal limits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(14)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Having noticed some mistakes in para 23 of Order dated 10th March, 2022 in the aforesaid appeals, we pass this corrigendum and para 23 of the aforesaid order shall be read as under :-

“23. Another contention of the Appellant that the demised agricultural lands was beyond 8 kms from any municipal limit has been negated by the Ld. AO, as according to him, the Sub- Registrar Manesar’s report stated the distance to be mere 3 kms from the limits of Gurugram. This factum has not been rebutted on behalf of the assessee. But this ground on merits even though prima facie against the assessee, however we do not think it necessary for us at this stage to go into this ground, as we have already held that the notice issued for re-assessment as issued to the Appellant was devoid of jurisdiction.”

More judgments on Section 2(14)

All 1,130 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(14) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →