TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the development agreement and handing over of possession amounted to a transfer under section 2(47)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, so as to tax the gain as short-term capital gains in the assessment year 2005-06, and whether the land transaction could instead be treated as an adventure in the nature of trade. (ii) Whether, for assessment year 2008-09, the assessee was entitled to have the income already assessed in assessment year 2005-06 excluded from fresh taxation and the matter recomputed accordingly.
Issue (i): Whether the development agreement and handing over of possession amounted to a transfer under section 2(47)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, so as to tax the gain as short-term capital gains in the assessment year 2005-06, and whether the land transaction could instead be treated as an adventure in the nature of trade.
Analysis: The assessee had executed a registered development agreement and related documents in respect of the land, and the developer was treated as having been put in possession. The Tribunal held that the facts did not support the assessee's alternate plea that she herself had carried on real estate development as a business adventure. It found that the development activity was undertaken by the developer and not by the assessee, and that the assessee's inconsistent treatment of the same asset in different years did not assist her case. The Tribunal therefore upheld the view that the arrangement constituted a transfer for capital gains purposes and did not amount to business income.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee and the short-term capital gains addition for assessment year 2005-06 was sustained.
Issue (ii): Whether, for assessment year 2008-09, the assessee was entitled to have the income already assessed in assessment year 2005-06 excluded from fresh taxation and the matter recomputed accordingly.
Analysis: The Tribunal accepted that the assessee's grievance was essentially against double taxation of the same capital gain in a later year. It held that the computation had to be revisited to ensure that income already brought to tax in the earlier assessment year was not assessed again in assessment year 2008-09. The matter was therefore restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh computation in accordance with law.
Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee to the limited extent of restoration for recomputation, with no final adjudication on the merits of the revised return claim.
Final Conclusion: The first appeal was dismissed, while the second appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for limited recomputation so that the same income is not taxed twice.
Ratio Decidendi: A development agreement gives rise to a transfer for capital gains purposes when the arrangement and possession satisfy the statutory requirements, but the same income cannot be subjected to assessment twice and must be excluded in later-year computation if already taxed earlier.
TaxTMI 
