2015 (5) TMI 123

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....x case appeal is filed by the Revenue questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 2. Heard Mr.S.Rajesh, learned counsel for the appellant. 3. The assessee, who is the respondent, is an individual. She filed a return of income for the assessment year 2009-2010 on 31.7.2009, admitting a total income of Rs. 1,04,880/-. Later, the case was taken up for s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... capital gains. 5. As against the said order of the Commissioner of Income Tax dated 7.2.2014, the assessee filed an appeal in I.T.A.No.1081/Mds/2014 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, by order dated 5.9.2014, allowed the appeal, holding that the assessee was actually a full time student undergoing MBBS course and that she is not indulging in any business activity and it wa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the assessee was a full time student undergoing MBBS course and that therefore, she could not have indulged in any business activity. It was one of the reasons adduced by the Tribunal for coming to the conclusion that it did. 9. A careful look at the order of the Tribunal would show that the assessee got the property by way of settlement. Thereafter, she entered into a promoter's agreement....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... In so far as the second ground is concerned, it is true that in Raja Rameshwara Rao Bahadur, the Supreme Court held that when a person acquired the land with a view to selling it later after developing it, he is carrying on an activity resulting in profit and the activity can only be described as a business venture. But, the case on hand stands on a different footing. The assessee did not acquir....