Profit from sale of agricultural land deemed business income, not capital gains. Intention to develop land for profit = business venture.

The court held that the profit earned from the sale of agricultural land by the assessee constituted business income rather than capital gains. The court determined that the intention to develop and sell the land for profit established a business venture, aligning with established legal precedents. The court ruled in favor of the revenue, concluding that the transactions were in the nature of trade or business for the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72, and 1972-73.

---

---

Issues involved: The judgment involves determining whether the profit earned by the sale of agricultural land constitutes business income or capital gains for the assessee.

Assessment year 1970-71: The Income Tax Officer (ITO) assessed the profits from land sales as business income, which was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) and Income-tax Tribunal. The questions referred to the court were regarding the nature of the transactions and the assessability of profits as business income. The Supreme Court criteria from G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT [1959] and Raja J. Rameshwar Rao v. CIT [1961] were cited to determine if the land sales were a business venture. The court concluded that the assessee's intention to develop and sell the land for profit constituted a business venture, aligning with the principles laid down in Raja J. Rameshwar Rao's case.

Assessment year 1971-72 and 1972-73: Similar to the previous assessment year, the profits from land sales were treated as business income by the ITO, AAC, and Tribunal. The court applied the principles from previous cases to determine that the assessee's activities of developing and selling land for profit constituted a business venture. The court found that the assessee's intention from the beginning was to develop and sell the land, leading to the conclusion that the transactions were in the nature of trade or business.

Conclusion: The court answered all questions in favor of the revenue, determining that the profit earned from the sale of agricultural land by the assessee constituted business income rather than capital gains. The decisions in other cases cited by the assessee were deemed not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the intention to develop and sell the land for profit was evident from the beginning, aligning with the criteria for a business venture as established in previous legal precedents.

---