https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11967 Whether gains on sale of a residential property comprising land and a subsequently constructed building must be bifurcated for capital gains purposes was the dominant issue. The HC held that ss. 45, 48 and 50 form an integrated code and, since depreciation under s. 32 is allowable only on the building and not on land, the computation provisions require separate identification of land and building as distinct capital assets; construction does not alter the land's character as a long-term capital asset if held beyond the s. 2(42A) period. Consequently, surplus on sale of land was long-term capital gain and surplus on sale of the building was short-term capital gain; the Department's contrary treatment was rejected. en-us Wed, 23 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 28 Dec 2025 21:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11967 Whether gains on sale of a residential property comprising land and a subsequently constructed building must be bifurcated for capital gains purposes was the dominant issue. The HC held that ss. 45, 48 and 50 form an integrated code and, since depreciation under s. 32 is allowable only on the building and not on land, the computation provisions require separate identification of land and building as distinct capital assets; construction does not alter the land's character as a long-term capital asset if held beyond the s. 2(42A) period. Consequently, surplus on sale of land was long-term capital gain and surplus on sale of the building was short-term capital gain; the Department's contrary treatment was rejected. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 23 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11967