News Update

India, China hold fresh dialogue for complete disengagement on Western borders: MEAThakur says India is prepared for 2036 OlympicsCBDT substitutes Form in ITR-5EV Revolution: Lessons for India to learn from US and China!London court green-signals auction of luxury apartment of fugitive Nirav ModiGovt consults RBI; finalises borrowing plan for first half of FY 2024-25Gadkari says Farmers’ protest is politically-motivatedVP calls upon women entrepreneurs to be 'Vocal for Local'America offers USD 10 mn bounty for information on ‘Blackcat’ hackers after UnitedHealth gets hitI-T- The order of the ITSC can only be reopened in cases of fraud or misrepresentation: HC8 persons including Hezbollah militants killed in Israeli strike on LebanonI-T - Income so surrendered on account of investment in excess stock during course of survey cannot be brought to tax under deeming provisions of section 69B: ITATMacron pillories EU-South Africa trade deal; calls it ‘really bad’ in BrazilI-T-Power of revision need not be exercised where facts do not reveal any lack of enquiry by AO into relevant issue & when twin requirements of order being erroneous as well as prejudicial to Revenue's interests, are not satisfied: ITATThailand’s Lower House okays Bill to legitimise same-sex marriageI-T -Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed where an assessee claims deduction u/s 80P while being ineligible therefor, but being under the bona fide impression of being eligible for such benefit : ITATYellen warns China against clean energy dumpingCus - Enhancement of declared value of imported goods is not tenable, where Department adduces no material to show how the enhanced value was computed & where no cogent rationale is made out for rejecting declared value: CESTATMilky Way’s central black hole - Twisted magnetic field observedCus - Assessee has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that goods in question imported under air way bills/bills of entry were in fact filed by him and hence the only natural corollary available to Revenue is confiscation of same: CESTATSmall investors help Trump Media’s valuation skyrocket to USD 13 billionST - When the facts are in the knowledge of department subsequent SCN alleging suppression cannot be issued and entire demand was found beyond normal period of limitation: CESTATFM Nirmala Sitharaman declines to contest LS elections as she has no fundsST - Tripura State Rifles not required to pay Service Tax under heading of Security Services, as it is is not engaged in business of providing security services: CESTATJustice Ritu Raj Awasthi joins as Judicial member of LokpalCX - Clandestine removal alleged based on consumption of raw inputs and heightened electricity usage - Tax demands based on third party statements but without permitting cross examination of deponents; case remanded to allow this exercise: CESTAT
 
I-T - Surplus generated by agriculturist on sale of his agri land is no basis to deny exemption u/s 2(14) and treat sale consideration as business income: HC

By TIOL News Service

AHEMDABAD, JULY 16, 2018: THE ISSUE BEFORE THE DIVISION BENCH IS - Whether profits yielded by agriculturist on sale of his agriculture land, is no basis to deny exemption u/s 2(14) and treat the sale consideration as business income. YES IS THE VERDICT.

Facts of the case:

The assessee, an individual, had filed his return declaring total income at Rs.3,49,630/-. During the course of assessment, the AO observed that assessee had sold three pieces of lands to one M/s.Coastal Gujarat Power Ltd. for an amount of Rs.1,21,72,438/- and had claimed exemption u/s 2(14). However, the AO treated the income arising out of sale of lands as business income, on the ground that assessee was doing business of sale and purchase of land and the transactions were "adventure in the nature of trade". The AO denied the exemption u/s 2(14) mainly because subject land was sold to the company for industrial purpose and there was a steep rise in the profit.

On appeal, the FAA held that the purchase and sale transaction in respect of one piece of land, was not "an adventure in the nature of trade". However, he upheld the decision of AO as far as sale of other two lands were concerned. On further appeal, the ITAT directed the AO to treat the profit of Rs.1,20,21,138/- earned by assessee on sale of agriculture land as exempt u/s 2(14).

High Court held that,

++ it is required to be noted that the issue in the present appeal is whether the ITAT is right in directing the AO to treat the profit of Rs.1,20,21,138/- earned by assessee on sale of agriculture land as exempt u/s 2(14) or not. The AO treated the profit earned by assessee on sale of agriculture lands as business income and not as capital gain on sale of agriculture lands, which is exempt from tax u/s 2(14) r/w/s 45 of the Act. From the order passed by AO, it appears that AO has treated the profit of Rs.1,20,21,138/- earned by assessee from sale of agriculture lands as business income mainly on the grounds that (i) the land was sold to the company, which used the said land for industrial purpose; (ii) that there was a steep rise in the profit and (iii) that the lands were sold within a short span of time. However, it is not in dispute that as such, what was sold by the assessee was agriculture land. In the revenue record also, lands were shown as agriculture lands. It is also required to be noted that the agriculture lands in question were sold by assessee after a period of approximately 15 to 16 months from purchase. Therefore, as such, it cannot be said that the agriculture lands were sold within a short span of time. It is also required to be noted that the assessee is an agriculturist and also belongs to family of agriculturists. Therefore, as the assessee sold the agriculture lands and therefore, claimed exemption u/s 2(14) on the profit earned on sale of agriculture lands, Section 2(14) is required to be referred;

++ on plain reading of Section 2(14), if the "agriculture land" as mentioned in Section 2(14)(iii) is sold, the assessee shall be entitled to claim exemption on profit earned on sale of agricultural land as per Section 2(14) r/w/s 45, unless it is established that the transaction carried out was "adventure in the nature of trade" and the profit thus required to be taxed as business income. On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal has specifically observed and held that the transaction carried out by the assessee was not "adventure in the nature of trade" and therefore, profit earned was not required to be taxed as business income. As observed, the land was sold as an agricultural land. What was the intention of the purchaser cannot be the determinative factor to treat the profit earned by assessee on sale of agriculture land as business income. Similarly, merely because for whatever reason, the assessee has earned sufficient huge amount of profit also cannot be a ground to treat the profit earned by the assessee on sale of agriculture land as business income. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has not committed any error in directing the AO to treat the profit of Rs.1,20,21,138/- earned by assessee on sale of agriculture land as exempt u/s 2(14).

(See 2018-TIOL-1345-HC-AHM-IT)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Shailendra Kumar, Trustee, TIOL Trust, giving welcome speech at TIOL Awards 2023




Shri M C Joshi, Former Chairman, CBDT




Address by Shri Buggana Rajendranath, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Andhra Pradesh at TIOL Awards 2023