High Court upholds classification of land sale income as capital gain, dismisses Revenue's appeal.

The High Court of Calcutta dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the Tribunal's decision, upholding the Commissioner of Income-tax's classification of income from a land sale as capital gain. The Court found no errors in the lower authorities' decisions, concluding that the income did not arise from a business activity. As the appeal did not raise any substantial question of law, it was refused admission. A correction in the Memorandum of Appeal regarding the appellant's name description was allowed by the Court, with directions for the department to make the necessary correction.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal against dismissal of appeal by Tribunal
2. Determination of income as business activity or capital gain

Analysis:
The High Court of Calcutta heard an appeal by the Revenue against a Tribunal's decision dismissing their appeal against the Commissioner of Income-tax's order. The case involved the sale of a plot of land and the classification of the resulting income as either business income or capital gain. The Commissioner held that the land sale should be treated as capital gain, considering various factors such as the appellant's lack of business activity on the land and the intention behind the land purchase for investment purposes. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that the computation of capital gains was in accordance with the law and that the sale was not a business activity for the appellant in the relevant assessment year.

The Court noted that the question of whether the income arose from a business activity or capital gain was a factual or mixed question of law and fact. Both the Commissioner and the Tribunal agreed that the income should be treated as capital gain. The Court found no infirmity in the decisions of the lower authorities. The appellant's representative could not point out any errors in the rulings. Consequently, the Court held that the appeal did not raise any substantial question of law and refused to admit it, dismissing the appeal.

Additionally, a correction was allowed in the Memorandum of Appeal to rectify the appellant's name description. The Court directed the department to make the necessary correction.

---