1982 (4) TMI 208

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The question is whether in a sale of house property the AAC was right in saying that profit on land shall be treated as long-term capital gains and on building as short-term capital gains, where the ITO has treated the entire thing as short-term capital gains. The cross-objection is to the effect that no capital gains have accrued and that the assessment is time-barred. 2. IT APPEAL NO. 346 (....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rm capital gains for buildings and Rs. 18,665 as long-term capital gains for land, the aggregate capital gains being Rs. 40,715. In the assessment of the assessee-husband, the ITO, after overruling the objections of the assessee, invoked section 64 of the income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') and brought out of the total capital gains of Rs. 40,715 (same figure as in the case of the wife) a sum of Rs. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rtmental appeal. The assessee could have argued that the whole thing is long-term because what is sold is the land (which is long-term) with building thereon, which is only an improvement to the land. But the assessee has not taken that stand before us. The case of the department is that what is sold is the building with land bought much earlier as appendage. The argument of the departmental repre....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... itself in the case of the wife of the assessee has treated the land as a separate asset and building as another separate asset. In India it is permissible to own land as a separate asset and building by another person as separate asset. So we uphold the decision of the AAC in treating the land as long-term and superstructure as short-term. 6. Departmental appeal dismissed. 7. CROSS OBJECTIO....