Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the surplus arising from sale of land was taxable as business income or capital gains, or whether the land retained its character as agricultural land outside the definition of capital asset under section 2(14)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The decisive factors were the character of the land at the time of purchase and sale, the revenue record entries, the contemporaneous evidence showing agricultural use, the location of the land outside the municipal limits, the Tehsildar's report confirming agricultural use and rural character, and the absence of any development or conversion activity by the assessee before sale. The Tribunal found that the Revenue had not rebutted the documentary evidence and that the purchaser's proposed non-agricultural use was irrelevant to the land's character in the assessee's hands. On the business-income aspect, the Tribunal held that frequency of transactions and sale to industrial buyers, by themselves, did not establish an adventure in the nature of trade where the lands were held as fixed assets and there was no material showing trading operations.
Conclusion: The land was held to be agricultural land and not a capital asset, and the surplus on sale was not taxable as business income or capital gains; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.