1986 (8) TMI 41

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ase, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the income of the assessee was not assessable under the head 'Business' ? " I.T.R.C. Nos. 194 and 195 of 1981 relate to the assessment years 1971-72 and 1974-75, respectively. I.T.R.C. Nos. 214 and 215 of 1979 relate to the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74, respectively. The facts in brief are : The assessee is a private, limited company having been incorporated on January 1, 1971. On December 11, 1970, it has entered into an agreement for sale with late Jayachamaraja Wadeyar of Mysore in regard to the property called " Bangalore Palace " and obtained possession of the building with the surrounding land measuring 110 acres situated within the Bangalore Corporation area. During ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ness. So stating, the Tribunal restored the assessment order of the Income-tax Officer. The question raised may be simple enough, but it requires a thorough factual investigation. The Tribunal in its order dated November 26, 1984, made in the appeal preferred by the Department for the subsequent years 1974-75, has found considerable difficulty in accepting its earlier decision and it has observed as follows: " On a consideration of rival submissions, we are of the opinion that this matter requires further investigation of facts. As pointed out by the Supreme Court the question depends entirely on the facts of the case. There is no material at present on record to indicate whether the assessee was required by reason of the contracts wi....