BHOOP SINGH POONIA,NOHAR vs. ITO WARD, NOHAR, NOHAR

158 taxmann.com 655/206 ITD\n289 has examined this issue very lucidly and we cannot do better\nthan taking note of the extensive discussion made by the\nTribunal on the position of law as well as test required to be\napplied for determining this transaction. Therefore, for facility\nof reference, we take note of the finding of the Tribunal from this

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARMER vs. PUSHP RAJ BOHRA, JALORE

The appeal of the revenue is allowed, in the manner discussed as above

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, HonʼBle & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Bleito, Ward-1, Barmer. Vs. Pushp Raj Bohra, M-09, Shivaji Nagar, Jalore - 343001. Pan No. Aanpb4456C Assessee By Shri Goutam Chand Baid, C.A. Revenue By Smt. Runi Pal, Cit (D.R.) Date Of Hearing 29.04.2025. Date Of Pronouncement 01.03.2025. Order Per Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Id. National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac/Cit(A)], Delhi Dated 08.02.2024 In Respect Of Assessment Year: 2017-18 Where The Department Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. Whether The Id. Cit(A) Is Justified In Facts & Law In Directing To Treat The Income From The Sale Of Immovable Properties As Capital Gains Instead Of Business Income, By Ignoring The Fact That Assesse & His Business Concerns Are Engaged In The Business Of Property & Real Estate Development & Huge Expenses Of Rs. 8.72 Cr. Were Incurred By Assessee On Development Of Projects To Earn Profit. 2. Whether The Id. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Directing The Ao To Treat The Income From The Sale Of Immovable Properties As Income From Capital Gains Instead Of Business Income By Merely Following The Order Of Hon'Ble

houses thereon amounted to adventure in the nature of trade and accordingly, the AO brought to tax the profit on sale of properties as income from business and disallowed the deductions/exemptions claimed by the appellant u/s.54F of the Act and 54EC of the Act. Aggrieved by the said additions/disallowances, the appellant is in appeal and has raised 07 grounds which