THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, VADODARA vs. SHRI RAJESH K. THAKKAR,, BARODA

ITSSA 92/AHD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 May 2024AY 2010-119 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed four appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2010-11 concerning Shri Anil K. Thakkar and three other co-owners. A search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was conducted on January 13, 2013. The assessees had purchased land in 2007. A portion of this land was converted into stock-in-trade on February 25, 2010, the same day a Development Agreement (DA) was entered into with M/s. Shrikunj Enterprise. As per the DA, income was disclosed under capital gains (Section 45(2)) and business income for subsequent assessment years. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the entire sale of land as capital gains for AY 2011-12, ignoring the conversion to stock-in-trade and subsequent development. The CIT(A) deleted the additions made by the AO.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Development Agreement (DA) dated 25.02.2010 did not amount to a "transfer" under Section 2(47)(v) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the DA was an unregistered contract and that only "easement rights" were given, not "possession," which is essential for invoking Section 2(47)(v). The Tribunal relied on the judgments in Jawahar L. Agicha and C. S. Atwal, stating that an unregistered agreement lacks legal validity for invoking Section 2(47)(v). Therefore, Ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue was dismissed. Regarding Ground No. 2, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee had established its intent to start a business through the DA and had disclosed business income from AY 2011-12 onwards. The conversion of a capital asset into stock-in-trade was considered a unilateral resolve whose fruition is a function of various factors. The Tribunal agreed that the land was thrown open for the business of development, constituting a joint business enterprise and a categorical expression of intent to convert the land into stock-in-trade. Thus, capital gains were to be taxed under Section 45(2) in the year of actual sale, not under Section 45(1) read with Section 2(47)(v). Ground No. 2 was dismissed. Concerning Ground No. 3, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's contention that consideration was received, noting the CIT(A)'s summary that the respondent had not received or withdrawn the entire sale consideration and, in fact, had not received any amount in FY 2009-10. Ground No. 3 was dismissed. All remaining grounds were consequential and dismissed. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Development Agreement dated 25.02.2010 amounts to a "transfer" within the meaning of Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, making the land a capital asset and capital gains taxable under Section 45(1), as argued by the Revenue, or if it was a conversion to stock-in-trade, as argued by the assessee. 2. Whether the conversion of land from a capital asset to stock-in-trade is meaningless because the assessee did not undertake business activity individually, and the land continued to be a capital asset, as contended by the Revenue, or if the assessee's intent and subsequent actions demonstrated a genuine conversion to stock-in-trade, as argued by the assessee. 3. Whether the assessee received consideration from the developer firm, as argued by the Revenue, citing withdrawals from a current account, or if the assessee had not received any amount in the relevant financial year, as argued by the assessee. Revenue's contentions: The DA constituted a transfer under Section 2(47)(v) as possession was given and the agreement was irrevocable. Conversion to stock-in-trade was meaningless as no individual business activity was undertaken. Assessee received substantial consideration through withdrawals from the developer firm's current account. Assessee's contentions: The DA was not a transfer under Section 2(47)(v). The conversion to stock-in-trade was genuine, evidenced by the DA and subsequent disclosure of business income. No consideration was received in the relevant financial year.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 153A,Section 139,Section 45(2),Section 54EC,Section 45(1),Section 2(47)(v)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “ C ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Consolidated Appeals (4)

ITA 90/Ahd/2017AY 2010-11
ITA 91/Ahd/2017AY 2010-11
ITA 92/Ahd/2017AY 2010-11
ITA 93/Ahd/2017AY 2010-11
For Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR
Hearing: 14/03/2024Pronounced: 16/05/2024

PER BENCH: All the above four appeals are filed by the Revenue as against the separate appellate orders dated 22-11-2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad [‘CIT(A)’ in short] pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11. 2 IT(SSA Nos. 90 to 93/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 DCIT Vs. Anil K. Thakkar

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,286 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →