Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE & SHRI GEORGE MATHAN
: Department by Mrs.S.Vijayaprabha, JCIT Assessee by : Mr.V.Srikrishnan, CA : 01.03.2018 सुनवाई क3 तार"ख/Date of Hearing : घोषणा क3 तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement 01.03.2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Revenue against the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Madurai, in dated 08.05.2017 for the AY 2011-12. 2. Mrs.S.Vijayaprabha, JCIT, represented on behalf of the Revenue and Mr.V.Srikrishnan, CA, represented on behalf of the assessee.
It was submitted by the Ld.DR that in the course of the assessment, it was noticed that the assessee had sold certain immovable properties :- 3 -: by the assessee was the same land, which was received by way of gift from the assessee’s husband in the year 2008 and whether the same has been shown as urban land in her Wealth Tax Returns for the AYs preceding to impugned Assessment Year being the AY 2011-12. If the assessee has shown the said land as urban land in her Wealth Tax Returns, obviously, the same cannot be treated as business asset or stock in trade and the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) would stand. If the same is not shown as urban land, the AO is at liberty to assess the same in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on March 01, 2018, at Chennai. (अ"ाहम पी. जॉज") (जॉज! माथन) (ABRAHAM P.GEORGE) (GEORGE MATHAN) "या$यक सद"य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद"य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER