https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307288 The Tribunal applied the real-nature test to hold that the Nagpur land was capital asset rather than trading stock, because it had been acquired for development and proposed leasing, development never commenced due to legal impediments, the sale was isolated, and the land had been reclassified as investment. It also held that long-term capital gains treatment depended on when enforceable rights in the property arose under section 2(42A); the MOU date was rejected and the vendor company's AGM resolution on 24.09.2007 was treated as the effective date of holding, so the statutory holding period was satisfied. The assessee's consistently followed project completion method was upheld because the books were not rejected and section 145 was not invoked. en-us Fri, 28 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Apr 2023 19:01:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307288 The Tribunal applied the real-nature test to hold that the Nagpur land was capital asset rather than trading stock, because it had been acquired for development and proposed leasing, development never commenced due to legal impediments, the sale was isolated, and the land had been reclassified as investment. It also held that long-term capital gains treatment depended on when enforceable rights in the property arose under section 2(42A); the MOU date was rejected and the vendor company's AGM resolution on 24.09.2007 was treated as the effective date of holding, so the statutory holding period was satisfied. The assessee's consistently followed project completion method was upheld because the books were not rejected and section 145 was not invoked. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 28 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307288