1987 (4) TMI 59

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e following question has been, at the instance of the Revenue, referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and has jurisdiction to hold that the land in question' is not a capital asset within the meaning of the definition ' ?" In the assessment year 1974-75, the Income-tax Offic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l asset. The Tribunal stated that the land was not acquired in 1964, but in the relevant accounting year when the award was made. This finding has not been challenged by the assessee. The Tribunal, however, noticed that the Bombay High Court had in Manubhai A. Sheth v. N. D. Nirgudkar, IInd ITO [1981] 128 ITR 87 held (p. 121): " ... capital gains made on sale of land situate in India, which lan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on 2(1) and, therefore, not chargeable under the Act. But the fallacy of that assumption is that, when land is sold, the sale proceeds do not constitute revenue but capital : (Commr. of Agrl. I.T. v. Kailas Rubber & Co. Ltd. [1966] 60 ITR 435 (SC) and Vishnudatta Antharjanam v. Commr. of Agrl. LT. [1970] 78 ITR 58 (SC). The profits or gains arising from the sale of land constitute income because s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Bombay High Court in Manubhai A. Sheth v. N. D. Nirgudkar, IInd ITO [1981] 128 ITR 87 to the contrary. We are fortified in this conclusion by the decisions in Ambalal Maganlal v. Union of India [1975] 98 ITR 237 (Guj), Jayachandra v. ITO [1986] 161 ITR 190 (Kar) and CIT v. Rajendrappa [1986] 162 ITR 666 (Kar). In the circumstances, we have no doubt that the sale proceeds constituted capita....