1992 (12) TMI 33

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ? " The brief facts of the case are that the assessee purchased a plot of land on March 26, 1962, for a sum of Rs. 4,650. Another piece of land was purchased by the assessee for Rs. 2,274 on July 9, 1968, the patta of which was received on January 12, 1970. The assessee has constructed a bungalow and the investment shown in the construction during the year 1968-69 was Rs. 16,000, during the year 1969-70 Rs. 50,774 and in 1970-71 Rs. 5,785. The bungalow was sold in June, 1970, to M/s. Murli Investment Co. Private Limited for a sum of Rs. 1,30,000. According to the assessing authority, the capital asset in question came into existence in the assessment year 1970-71, the year in which the construction of the bungalow was completed and was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... consideration as mentioned in the sale deed dated August 4, 1970. The contention that the gains are long-term capital gains and not short-term capital gains was rejected by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Against this order, the assessee challenged the order before the Income tax Appellate Tribunal where it was contended by the assessee that the land and building should be treated as separate assets and since the asset (land) came into existence much before two years from the date of sale, therefore, it should be treated as a long-term capital gain. The Income-tax Appeals Tribunal came to the conclusion that there is no dispute that the value of land taken by the Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ....