NITHIN PANDURANG DHOND,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

ITA 661/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 July 2024AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee's systematic activity of purchasing land, converting its usage, developing it into plots, and selling them at a profit constitutes a business venture. Therefore, the income is taxable as business income, not capital gains.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased land and subsequently converted its usage to residential, obtained layout approvals, and sold plots. The Assessing Officer treated the gains as short-term capital gains, while the assessee contended it was business income.

What were the issues?

Whether the profit from the sale of land, after conversion of its usage and development, should be treated as capital gains or business income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 45(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, ‘SMC‘ BENCH

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni
For Respondent: Ms. Kakoli Ghosh
Hearing: 27/06/2024Pronounced: 23/07/2024

PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 26/12/2023 passed by ld. CIT(A)-56, Mumbai for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.143(3) for the A.Y.2016-17. 2. In the grounds of appeal the assessee has raised the following grounds:-

2 Shri Nithin Pandurang Dhond “1. The order of the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 56, Mumbai, is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2 The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of short- term capital gains of Rs. 6,57,69,190/-. 3 The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the Appellant is in the business of real- estate and had pu

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 45(2)

All 243 judgments and leading authorities on Section 45(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →