TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (8) TMI 1058
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 31-8-1992 for the assessment year 1990-91. 2. The appeal is time barred by 2 days and on the basis of the application dated 22-12-1992, we condone the delay on merits and the appeal is admitted. 3. The brief facts (if the case are that the assessee had purchased a plot of land in January 1984 for a consideration of Rs. 32,292. Later, he constructed a dwelling unit in the said piece of lan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent, the learned Departmental Representative relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the structure cannot be separated from the land and both are the same unit. He said that the assessee made an attempt to avoid the tax by bifurcating the land from the building. Lastly, he justified the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. On the other hand, the learned Authorised Represent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s' which but for section 64 should have been assessed in the hands of the wife, as the capital gains of the assessee liable to be assessed in his hands in the same way in which the same would have been assessed in the hands of the wife. 6. We have heard both the parties at length and gone through the material available on record from which it appears that it is an undisputed fact that the land as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to remain as an identifiable capital asset even after construction of the building. As per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Ramachandra Rao (Dr. D.L.) [1999] 236 ITR 51 where the bifurcation of the capital gains for the purpose of long-term capital gains pertaining to land and short-term capital gains pertaining to the superstructure was upheld. 7. Furt....