SHAHNAJ,NEAR BHERUDANJI WELL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, INCOME TAX OFFICE

ITA 712/JODH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 January 2025AY 2013-14Bench: Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)40 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) erred in discrediting a later municipal letter which stated the land was outside municipal limits, especially when it referenced a relevant gazette notification. The Tribunal set aside the addition to income and capital gains tax.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold a piece of land and claimed it as agricultural land situated beyond municipal limits. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated it as a capital asset within municipal limits, invoking Section 50C. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order.

What were the issues?

Whether the land sold was agricultural land outside municipal limits, and if the benefit of Section 54F should be allowed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 50C,Section 54F,Section 147,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(24)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR

Before: Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI & DR MITHA LAL MEENASmt. Shanaj

For Appellant: Shri Aman Saxena Advocate, Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT-DR
Hearing: 05/10/2024

PER: DR S. SEETHALAKSHMI , JM

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 23-08-2024, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2013-14 raising therein following grounds of appeal:-

2 SMT SHAHNAJ VS ITO, WARD-2, CHURU ‘’1. The Lower Authorities have grossly erred in taxing the sale of land even though the agricultural land is situated beyond the Municipal Limits.

2.

The ld AO has grossly erred in not taking into consideration the Govt Notification dated 01-07-1988 holding that the said land is beyond the municipal limits of Sardarshahar.

3.

That the ld.AO has grossly erred in not allowing the benefit of Section 54F of

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 50C

All 3,223 judgments and leading authorities on Section 50C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →