Sale of plotted agricultural land not business income, but capital gains apply where municipal-limit conditions make it a capital asset.

Sale of plots carved out of agricultural land received on dissolution of a firm was not treated as business income because there was no evidence of a land-dealing venture, no development activity, and no conversion into a commercial enterprise; mere plotting to secure a better price did not make the transaction an adventure in the nature of trade. Agricultural land within municipal limits of a town meeting the statutory population threshold was treated as a capital asset, so the statutory exclusion did not apply and capital gains tax remained chargeable on the sale.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the sale of plots carved out of agricultural land constituted business income or capital gains. (ii) Whether the land in question was a capital asset so as to attract capital gains tax.

Issue (i): Whether the sale of plots carved out of agricultural land constituted business income or capital gains.

Analysis: The land came to the assessees on dissolution of the firm and there was no material to show that they had embarked upon a business of purchasing land, developing it and selling plots as a commercial venture. Mere sale of the land in plotted form to obtain a better price did not by itself convert the transaction into a business activity. The absence of conversion of the land for non-agricultural use and the absence of any business activity in the assessees' hands negatived the character of an adventure in the nature of trade.

Conclusion: The sale proceeds were not assessable as business income, and the treatment of the receipts as business income was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the land in question was a capital asset so as to attract capital gains tax.

Analysis: Agricultural land situated within municipal limits and in a town having a population exceeding the statutory threshold falls within the definition of capital asset under the Income-tax Act. Since the land was within the municipal limits of Pipariya and the population condition was satisfied, the statutory exclusion for agricultural land was unavailable. The fact that the land was sold in plots for non-agricultural use further supported its character as a capital asset for capital gains purposes.

Conclusion: The land was a capital asset and the assessees were liable to capital gains tax on the sale.

Final Conclusion: The assessments could not be sustained as business assessments, but capital gains tax on the sale of the land remained chargeable.

Ratio Decidendi: Sale of land received on dissolution, without any business of land development or conversion into a commercial venture, does not constitute business income; however, agricultural land within municipal limits satisfying the statutory population requirement is a capital asset chargeable to capital gains tax.

---