Adventure in the nature of trade depends on overall facts; land sale proceeds remained capital gains, with income taxed to beneficiaries.

Transfer of land is assessed on its overall character and surrounding circumstances, and a profitable sale or conversion of land use does not by itself establish an adventure in the nature of trade. On the facts, the agreement to purchase, steps taken for conversion, and later agreement to sell did not trading intention sufficient to treat the receipt as business income, so it was correctly assessed as capital gains. The income was also held assessable in the hands of the beneficiaries rather than an association of persons, as no legal error or perversity was shown in the concurrent findings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the consideration arising from the transfer of the land was assessable as capital gains or as business income on the footing that the transaction was an adventure in the nature of trade; (ii) whether the income could be assessed in the hands of an association of persons instead of the beneficiaries.

Issue (i): Whether the consideration arising from the transfer of the land was assessable as capital gains or as business income on the footing that the transaction was an adventure in the nature of trade.

Analysis: The transaction had to be judged on its overall character and surrounding circumstances. The assessee had entered into an agreement to purchase the land, initiated conversion of the land for a different use, and later entered into an agreement for sale. Applying the settled principle that no single rigid test determines whether a transaction is an adventure in the nature of trade, the surrounding facts did not show a trading intention sufficient to convert the receipt into business income.

Conclusion: The receipt was rightly treated as capital gains and not as business income, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the income could be assessed in the hands of an association of persons instead of the beneficiaries.

Analysis: The concurrent appellate findings accepted that the income was exigible in the hands of the beneficiaries and not as the income of an association of persons. No perversity or legal error was shown in that conclusion.

Conclusion: The assessee was not liable to be assessed as an association of persons, and the assessment was to be made in the hands of the beneficiaries, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent findings that the transaction did not constitute a trading adventure and that the income was assessable in the hands of the beneficiaries were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Whether a transfer constitutes an adventure in the nature of trade must be determined from the total effect of all relevant facts and circumstances, and a mere profitable bargain or subsequent sale does not by itself convert the receipt into business income.

---