TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (3) TMI 330
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rcumstances of case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 16,93,42,000/- by holding that the advance received of by the assessee for the sale of lands is not taxable in the instant assessment year? (2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,07,82,342/- by holding that profits from the sale of lands is not taxable under the head profits and gains of business or profession vis-à-vis capital gain taken by the Assessing Officer?" 3. Insofar as the first proposed question is concerned, we find that certain properties were purchased between 08.02.2005 and 25.08.2005. The total purchase price of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f said addition of Rs. 16,93,42,000/-. 5. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are in agreement with the stand and approach adopted by the Tribunal. There was no evidence of any confirmed transaction in the year in question. As such, the addition could not have been made on the ground that the transaction had been concluded. We may also point out that in the subsequent year, the entire amount has been offered for taxation and has been subjected to tax. The Tribunal concluded its discussion on this aspect as under:- "The facts of this case are clearly distinguishable. No agreement has been signed in this year. The possession has also not been delivered in this year. The twin conditions of execution of written agreement and handing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the assessee's business income. Consequently, the Assessing Officer made an addition of the said sum of Rs. 3,07,82,342/- by holding it as profit on sale of land which was taxable under the head 'profits and gains of business or profession' and not by way of capital gains. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the said addition and the said deletion has been confirmed by the Tribunal by virtue of the impugned order. 7. The Tribunal considered the arguments raised on behalf of the parties and after examining the case law on the subject, observed that an assessee could hold lands either for business or as an investment and there was no bar on an assessee in undertaking, along with his business of sale-purchase of land, also an ....