TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court rules land non-agricultural, assesses capital gains tax.</h1> <h3>Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Universal Cine Traders Private Limited</h3> Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Universal Cine Traders Private Limited - [1986] 161 ITR 696, 52 CTR 169, 24 TAXMANN 492 Issues Involved1. Whether the balance 13,200 square yards of land or any part thereof was non-agricultural land.2. Whether more than 3/25 share of the excess price realized by the assessee-company was liable to assessment under the head 'Capital gains'.Detailed AnalysisIssue 1: Whether the balance 13,200 square yards of land or any part thereof was non-agricultural landThe primary question was whether the land acquired by the Government and sold by the assessee was agricultural land. The term 'agricultural land' is not defined in the Income-tax Act, 1961, or the Wealth-tax Act, and its meaning must be gathered from what is generally understood or in accordance with popular parlance.The Tribunal had initially ruled that the land continued to be agricultural because it was assessed to land revenue as agricultural land and had not been put to any use that rendered it unfit for cultivation. However, the High Court noted several factors that contradicted this view:- The land was situated in a suburb of Bombay, a very large city.- Govindram Brothers applied for permission to use the land for non-agricultural purposes immediately after agreeing to purchase it, indicating their intention to use it non-agriculturally.- There was no evidence that the land was ever used for agricultural purposes by the assessee or its predecessors.- The land was occasionally used for shooting films, which is a non-agricultural use.- The only factor suggesting it was agricultural land was its assessment to land revenue, which the court found insufficient to determine its character.The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in CWT v. Officer-in-Charge (Court of Wards), Paigah, which held that classification in revenue records as agricultural land is only a rebuttable presumption and not conclusive evidence. The Gujarat High Court's decision in Arundhati Balkrishna v. CIT further supported the view that the intention of the owner and the actual use of the land are significant factors in determining its character.Based on these considerations, the court concluded that the land in question was non-agricultural.Issue 2: Whether more than 3/25 share of the excess price realized by the assessee-company was liable to assessment under the head 'Capital gains'The court addressed the second issue by determining that since the land was non-agricultural, the entire excess price realized from its sale was liable to be assessed under the head 'Capital gains'.The Tribunal had initially included a capital gain of Rs. 8,34,813 in the total income of the assessee, which was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The High Court affirmed this decision, noting that the land was non-agricultural and thus subject to capital gains tax under section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.ConclusionThe High Court concluded that the balance of 13,200 square yards of land was non-agricultural land and, therefore, the entire excess price realized by the assessee-company on the sale of such land was liable to assessment under the head 'Capital gains'. The assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the reference.
TaxTMI 