ACIT 17(1) , MUMBAI vs. GUPTA C K , MUMBAI

ITA 123/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 July 2024AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the income received from the JDA is to be treated as capital gains and not business income. The assessee is entitled to claim exemption under Section 54EC of the Act.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an HUF, entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) for its land, offering 20% of gross revenue receipts as consideration. The Assessing Officer treated the income as business income instead of capital gains, while the assessee maintained it was a capital asset.

What were the issues?

Whether income from a Joint Development Agreement is to be treated as capital gains or business income, and whether the land is a capital asset or stock-in-trade.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(13),Section 54EC,Section 45(5A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

For Appellant: Shri Rajen Damani
For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Hearing: 04.04.2024Pronounced: 01.07.2024

Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:

This appeal has been filed by the Revenue, challenging the order of the learned

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short), National Faceless Appeal

Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'),

pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2016-17. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF

for short) and had filed return of income declaring total income at Rs.22,56,02,510/- out

of ‘income from capital gains’ and ‘income from other sources’.

3.

The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and the ld. Assessing Officer ('A.O.'

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 2(13)

All 92 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(13) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →