What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that if the land sold was previously gifted by the assessee's husband and declared as urban land in wealth tax returns, it cannot be treated as stock-in-trade. If not declared as urban land, the AO can assess it accordingly.

The Revenue appealed an order of the CIT(A) concerning the assessment year 2011-12. The core issue revolved around immovable properties sold by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the immovable property sold by the assessee was previously declared as urban land in wealth tax returns, impacting its classification as stock-in-trade.

ACIT vs J.Seethalakshmi, Aruppukottai | ITAT Chennai 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE & SHRI GEORGE MATHAN

Pronounced: 01.03.2018

: 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

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, MADURAI vs. J.SEETHALAKSHMI, ARUPPUKOTTAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments