Vijayalekshmi K.S. vs. The Income Tax Officer- 1(3)

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 06.12.2022 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. The assessee claimed that the capital gain arising from the transfer of agricultural land was not chargeable to tax. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) disagreed with the contention of the assessee on the reasoning that the land in dispute was situated in Perrorkada village and therefore the same is an urban land. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the same and added the sum of Rs. 80,20,774/- as income under the head capital gain. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the order of the AO. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The ld. AR of the assessee before the tribunal filed a certificate issued by the Trivandrum Corporation dated 26.12.2021 certifying that the land in dispute was within the limits of Vattiyoorkavu Grama Panchayath prior to 30th September 2010. The learned A.R. also filed Form P (basic tax register) demonstrating that the land in dispute was used for growing paddy. The learned A.R. also filed Revenue records duly notarized demonstrating that the land in dispute was agricultural land.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the capital gain arising from the transfer of agricultural land was chargeable to tax?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• DCIT, Circle 4 (2), vs. Cyberwalk Tech Park Pvt. Ltd.

  Delhi Bench ‘B’ benchAY 2012-13Dismissed

• Arun Agarwal vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Bikaner

  Jodhpur bench

• Ibrahim Vellachalil vs. The Income Tax Officer- 2(3)

  Cochin bench

• Nataraj Ramaiah v. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation

  Chennai bench

• Satyajae Shanbor Gupta vs. Income Tax Officer

  Delhi bench

• Lickmichand Anand Singhvi vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

  Chennai bench