Capital gains treatment upheld for property sales where facts showed investment intent, and residential house deduction was allowed.

Sale of immovable property is treated as capital gains where the surrounding facts show investment intent, long-term holding and appreciation of surplus funds, and mere multiplicity of transactions or ownership of commercial properties does not, by itself, establish business income. The article also notes that a deduction for investment and construction of a residential house is available where the properties relied on do not amount to disqualifying residential houses in the assessee's individual capacity and the facts support construction of a single residential house. On those facts, the assessee obtained relief on both the income characterisation and the exemption claim.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the income arising from sale of immovable property was taxable as business income or under the head capital gains; (ii) whether the assessee was entitled to deduction in respect of investment and construction of a residential house.

Issue (i): Whether the income arising from sale of immovable property was taxable as business income or under the head capital gains.

Analysis: The nature of the transactions, the manner in which the properties were acquired and retained, and the surrounding circumstances showed that the assessee had invested surplus sale proceeds in properties for appreciation and not with a design of carrying on regular trading activity in immovable property. The fact that several properties were purchased or that some were commercial in nature was held insufficient, by itself, to convert the investment into stock-in-trade. The sale of a few properties on account of disputes, location issues, or lower expected gains did not alter the character of the remaining holdings.

Conclusion: The income from sale of property was required to be assessed under the head capital gains and not as business income, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee was entitled to deduction in respect of investment and construction of a residential house.

Analysis: The properties relied upon by the lower authorities were found not to constitute disqualifying residential houses in the assessee's individual capacity, as some were commercial in nature and one was held only as a share in ancestral property. The time condition was also not treated as fatal in the facts of the case, in view of the beneficial object of the provision and the evidence of construction of a single residential house. The exemption claim was therefore accepted.

Conclusion: The deduction for construction of a residential house was allowable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The additions sustained by the lower authorities were set aside and the assessee obtained relief on both the characterisation of the property income and the exemption claim.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere multiplicity of property transactions or purchase of commercial properties does not, without more, establish business income where the surrounding facts indicate investment intent and long-term holding; exemption provisions for residential house investment are to be applied according to their beneficial purpose when statutory disqualifications are not actually attracted.

---