Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1992 (1) TMI 62

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s is a reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the Revenue. The assessment years with which we are concerned are the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79. The question that is referred to us reads thus : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of In....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 1978, the assessee submitted that it had ceased to collect lease rent for the said sites after the execution of the agreement for sale so that the lease rent of Rs. 6,000 per annum should not be included in its business income. The Revenue, on the other hand, submitted that the assessee continued to be the owner of the said sites until they stood transferred to the vendee in accordance with law s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d sites could not be assessed in the hands of the assessee for the relevant years. The Tribunal noted that the case of income assessable under the head "Property" under section 22 was different from income assessable as business income under section 28. On behalf of the Revenue, emphasis has been laid upon the judgment of this court in the case of the assessee itself (Ramkumar Mills P. Ltd. v. ....