TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 205
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als) is opposed to the facts of the case and law applicable to it. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer. assessing the profit consequent to sale of land during the previous year under the head business as against capital gains declared by the appellant 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not considering the fact that the appellant was never in the business of real estate. held the asset as capital asset and the income was therefore assessable under the head capital gains. 4.The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer and ignoring the fact that. just an act of conversion from agricul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed AR of the assessee that in the present case, an agricultural property measuring 16 acres and 20 guntas was jointly purchased by the assessee on 17.09.2005 along with 2 co-owners, totally 3 co-owners including the present assessee and as has been noted by the AO on page 2 of the Assessment Order, this purchase has been made in pursuance of one of the purposes of the co-ownership deed, copy of which is available on pages 15 5o 17 of the Paper Book and this co-ownership agreement is dated 15.06.2002. He submitted that although this co-ownership agreement was executed on 15.06.2002 but the first purchase of land in pursuance to this agreement is only on 17.09.2005 and this purchase of land is not for any business purpose and therefore, the g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of authorities below. 3. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that in the Paper Book from pages 1 to 9, the learned AR of the assessee has also submitted written submissions before the Tribunal and on page 5 of he said written submission, it is submitted that the intention of the co-ownership agreement made between the assessee's brother and relative is only for the purpose of better future understanding to divide the share of land, the rights on property or gain/losses and hence, it is seen this is not the contention of the assessee that this land was not purchased in pursuance to the co-ownership agreement dated 15.06.2002. Hence, we proceed on this basis that the land in question was purchased by the assessee along with c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts, copy of which is submitted in the case law compilation, we find that in the facts of the present case, these judgments are not applicable because the facts are different. In the first judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Rama Rani Kali 358 ITR 499, the issue in dispute was regarding taxability of the gain in a case where lease hold right was converted into free hold right. This judgment is not applicable in the present case. The second judgment relied upon by him is the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Frick India Ltd., 369 ITR 328 and in this case, the written lease agreement was for 3 years but the assessee continued to pay rent and occupied the premises for 11 m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s case, it is seen that the agricultural land was given to the assessee as gift and the assessee developed the land and sold it as plots and it was held by Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court that this activity is not in the nature of adventure in the nature of trade and therefore, the gain is assessable as capital gains. This judgment is also not applicable in the present case because in the present case, we have seen that the purchase of land itself was in pursuance to co-ownership agreed dated 15.06.2002 and as per this agreement, joint purchase of land by this co-ownership was for the purpose of business and therefore, the gain arising on such purchase and sale of land by the co-ownership has to be assessed as business income and this ju....