SHRIRAM SAHADEV RAWOOL,SINDHUDURG vs. ITO, WARD-1, KUDAL, KUDAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2159/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 December 2025AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the assessee failed to provide any material or documentary evidence to prove that the land was agricultural and not a capital asset, the lower authorities were justified in treating it as a taxable capital asset.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, sold immovable property for Rs. 2,94,57,000/- and failed to disclose the capital gain in his return. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment and taxed the capital gain. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's action.

What were the issues?

Whether rural agricultural land, not considered a capital asset as per Section 2(14) of the Act, can be treated as a taxable capital asset and taxed for capital gains.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 112,Section 139,Section 147,Section 142(1),Section 2(14)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA

For Respondent: Smt. Indira R. Adakil, Addl.CIT

आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to:

1. 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant; प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 2.

More judgments on Section 112

All 158 judgments and leading authorities on Section 112 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →