Presumption Of Correctness Of Judicial Records Not Absolute And Can Be Rebutted By Direct Evidence: Kerala High Court on Married Daughter Cannot Challenge Partition After 21-Year Slumber If She Had Knowledge: Madhya Pradesh High Court Kerala High Court Orders Immediate Suspension Of Lakshadweep CJM For Allegedly Forging Witness Deposition To Convict Accused Supreme Court Bars Post-Divorce Maintenance Claims When Wife Voluntarily Waived Maintenance In Settlement Agreement Advocate Is An Officer Of Court, Not Mere Agent Of Client: Allahabad High Court Distinguishes Between Active Concealment & Statement In Ignorance, Slaps Cost On Litigants For Misleading Bench Cannot Summon Accused Mechanically On Protest Petition Without Assigning Justifiable Reasons: Andhra Pradesh High Court Increment Not A Bounty: Allahabad High Court Rules Public Holiday Cannot Delay Pay Hike For Teachers Joining Next Working Day Paying Taxes Or Utility Connections Confer No Legal Ownership Over Govt Land': Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Demolition Of Encroachment 'Cannot Compel Public Authority To Collect Data From Private Bodies': Bombay High Court Quashes CIC Orders Directing SEBI To Procure BSE Records Under RTI Act Section 10 CPC Cannot Stay Previously Instituted Title Suit Pending Subsequent Probate Case; Inherent Powers Under Section 151 Inapplicable When Probate Dismissed: Calcutta High Court Mere Phone Calls Without Transcripts No Ground For Murder Conspiracy: Delhi High Court Clear Violation Of Section 42 NDPS Act': Gujarat High Court Holds Failure To Record Secret Info In Writing Fatal When Police Officer Had Time To Act JK High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Cop Accused Of Threatening Advocate Over Phone Call Without Prior Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC Custody Unwarranted For Mere Formalities Once Weapon Is Recovered: Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail In BNS Axe Attack Case Circumstances Of Crime Can Be Assessed During Trial: High Court Upholds Trial Of Minor As Adult Under JJ Act In Murder Case Statutory Deposit Under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC Is A Sine Qua Non; Litigant Cannot Stall Auction Sale By Merely Blaming Counsel: Madras High Court Ban Junk Food Within 50 Metres Of Schools: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Moto Cognizance To Enforce FSSAI Norms, Protect Children From Obesity

ITAT to consider sale of capital assets or sale of stock in trade in land transfer tax case: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgement, the Supreme Court has quashed and set aside the order passed by the High Court and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in a case related to the transfer of development rights. The apex court remanded the matter back to the ITAT to consider the appeal afresh in light of the observations made by the court and to take into account the relevant factors while considering the transaction as stock in trade or sale of capital assets or business transaction.

The bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna, observed that the ITAT has not considered the relevant aspects while considering the transaction in question as stock in trade and has not taken into account the relevant factors required to be considered by the ITAT. Therefore, the matter is required to be remanded to the ITAT to consider the appeal afresh in light of the observations made by the court and to take into account the relevant factors while considering the transaction.

The case relates to the treatment of the transaction as capital assets by the assessing officer. However, the ITAT reversed the said findings and held that the transaction was stock in trade. The assessing officer had recorded the findings based on examining the balance sheets for AY 2006-07 to 2009-10 that there was not even a single sale during all these years and that the transaction in question was the only transaction, i.e., transfer of development rights in respect of land. Consequently, it was held that the transaction was one of transfer of capital assets and not one of transfer of stock in trade.

However, the ITAT, after examining the opening and closing balance for AY 1996-97 to 2007-08 observed that inventory was shown in the balance sheet in multiple years, without discussing the claim of the assessee and held that the transaction in question was the sale of stock in trade. The ITAT has not dealt with the findings given by the assessing officer nor verified/examined the total sales made by the assessee during the relevant time and during the previous years.

The bench observed that merely recording inventory in the books of accounts would not make the transaction stock in trade. As per the settled position of law, multiple factors like frequency of trade and volume of trade, nature of transaction over the years, etc., are required to be examined to determine whether a particular transaction is the sale of capital assets or business expense.

The bench further noted that even if the claim made by the assessee is accepted, including the assertion that Rs. 15,94,06,500/- was shown in the tax return in the earlier AY i.e., 2008-09, the differential amount of Rs. 10,69,79,146/- on account of reduction in sale consideration of development rights was to be assessed in the current year as either capital gain or business income.

Date of Decision: May 04, 2023

Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai vs Glowshine Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Latest Legal News