TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (7) TMI 1007
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g-term capital gain' and not 'income from other sources' as held by all the lower authorities. 2. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by all the lower authorities against the appellant and in absence of any question of law raised by the appellant, we are unable to admit this appeal. Normally, we would have dismissed this appeal summarily without giving elaborate reasons. However, we are venturing to give detailed reasons so as to make this order a speaking order (not because any legal issue as such is raised by this appeal). 3. Few facts at the threshold for better understanding of this order may be necessary and we are setting out the same hereunder:- "The appellant claims to be a builder. The appellant filed income-tax returns on 13-11-1998 in regard to the assessment year in issue i.e., 1998-99, declaring total income of Rs. 25,48,000. Along with the returns, the appellant submitted two agreements, termed as Memorandum of Understandings dated 10-4-1995 and 1-12-1989. The appellant also submitted copy of a Release-deed dated 11-6-1997. All these three documents pertain to a particular transaction with which we will deal at some length hereunder." 4. The appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is further case of the appellant that on account of certain legal problems, Mr. Dalvi could not honour his commitments of development and construction. Therefore, the parties entered into another agreement, also termed as Memorandum of Understanding dated 1-12-1989 whereby Mr. Dalvi agreed to refund the entire amount paid by appellant of Rs. 31,11,000. In addition to refund of the said amount with interest by the said MOU dated 1-12-1989 Mr. Dalvi also agreed to pay an additional amount of Rs. 29,11,000 i.e., the amount in issue, to the appellant inter alia as a compensation for cancellation of arrangement and so called understanding entered into between the appellant and Mr. Dalvi, in terms of MOU dated 10-4-1985. Accordingly, the amount in issue was paid by Mr. Dalvi to the appellant, in the financial years 1996-97 and 1997-98. It is further the case of the appellant that in the meantime the appellant and Mr. Dalvi entered into a third agreement, called 'Release Deed', dated 19-6-1997, declaring that Mr. Dalvi is released absolutely forever and from all obligations, arising under MOU dated 10-4-1985. 6. As set out at the threshold of this order in the returns filed by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rdance with the MOU and/or the Release deed entered into by and between the appellant and Mr. Dalvi. In view of these admitted facts and circumstances of this case it cannot be said that the amount in issue so received by the appellant is not an income at all in terms of section 2(24) read with section 14 and section 56 of the said Act. We therefore, hereby reject the said contention of the appellant and confirm the findings of all the lower authorities, holding that the amount in issue received by the appellant is a income taxable under the said Act. 10. This takes us to the classification or categorization of the income so received by the appellant viz., whether the same is to be treated as "income from long-term capital gain" or as "income from other sources." The factual narration of the transactions, which the appellant had with Mr. Dalvi demonstrates that the appellant did pay to Mr. Dalvi, total amount of Rs. 31,11,000 in terms of the MOU dated 10-4-1985. However, as Mr. Dalvi was unable to carry out the development and construction, as agreed by the MOU dated 10-4-1985, the parties entered into another MOU dated 1-12-1989. In addition thereto, the appellant also enter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....manlal [1992] 197 ITR 123 (Guj.). Ahmed G.H. Ariff v. CWT [1970] 76 ITR 471 (SC). Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1970] 76 ITR 478 (Bom.). CIT v. Vijay Flexible Containers [1990] 186 ITR 693 (Bom.). 13. It is true that the term 'property' used in section 2(14) of the said Act is to be interpreted widely and that it will include any right, title or interest in the immovable property, as also right to obtain conveyance(s) of immovable property. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as discussed hereinabove, the appellant has failed to correlate the payment of amount in issue of Rs. 29,11,000 made to the appellant by Mr. Dalvi, towards any such right contemplated/considered by any of the aforesaid reported judgments. As the appellant, in view of the facts of this case, has failed to show that the amount in issue was paid to the appellant towards relinquishment of any such right/title/interest in respect of any immovable property or for that matter any "property of any kind" it cannot be said that the amount in issue had been received by the appellant as "income from long-term capital gains". 14. The facts of this case clearly demonstrate tha....