<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2014 (11) TMI 1164 - ITAT COCHIN</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197556</link>
    <description>Profit on sale of land was treated as business income because the surrounding facts showed an adventure in the nature of trade rather than a passive capital investment. The decisive factor was the intention at the time of purchase: the land was bought, levelled at substantial cost, left uncultivated, and sold shortly thereafter, which indicated a commercial motive and prompt steps toward sale. The stated foreign exchange restriction on acquisition of agricultural land by a non-resident also supported the inference that the transaction was not an ordinary agricultural holding. The addition was therefore upheld and the profit was not assessable as capital gain.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Jan 2018 08:11:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=503782" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (11) TMI 1164 - ITAT COCHIN</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197556</link>
      <description>Profit on sale of land was treated as business income because the surrounding facts showed an adventure in the nature of trade rather than a passive capital investment. The decisive factor was the intention at the time of purchase: the land was bought, levelled at substantial cost, left uncultivated, and sold shortly thereafter, which indicated a commercial motive and prompt steps toward sale. The stated foreign exchange restriction on acquisition of agricultural land by a non-resident also supported the inference that the transaction was not an ordinary agricultural holding. The addition was therefore upheld and the profit was not assessable as capital gain.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197556</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>