https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21112 HC held that land and building constitute distinct capital assets under s.2(14) of the Income-tax Act and must be separately considered for capital gains computation under s.48. Even where a single consolidated sale consideration is received for both, the assessee is entitled to bifurcate the consideration between land and superstructure. Consequently, the fact that the superstructure may give rise to short-term capital gains does not preclude treating the gain on land as long-term capital gain if the holding period so qualifies. As both the Department and valuer had separately valued land and building, HC upheld the Tribunal's decision, answering in favour of the assessee and against Revenue. en-us Wed, 16 Dec 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Dec 2025 23:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21112 HC held that land and building constitute distinct capital assets under s.2(14) of the Income-tax Act and must be separately considered for capital gains computation under s.48. Even where a single consolidated sale consideration is received for both, the assessee is entitled to bifurcate the consideration between land and superstructure. Consequently, the fact that the superstructure may give rise to short-term capital gains does not preclude treating the gain on land as long-term capital gain if the holding period so qualifies. As both the Department and valuer had separately valued land and building, HC upheld the Tribunal's decision, answering in favour of the assessee and against Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 16 Dec 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21112