Skip to main content

Return from a Development Agreement in favour of land owner is capital gain

Cause Title : Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata Iv, Kolkata Vs. M/s. Machino Techno Sales Ltd., ITA/160/2011, Calcutta High Court

Date of Judgment/Order : 20/02/2023

Corum : The Hon’ble Justices T.s. Sivagnanam And Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

Citied: 

Background

Some lands were purchased by the assessee during 1985/1990 and the said land and factory shed was used by the assessee as its workshop and was shown as capital asset in its balance-sheet. The purchase prices were debited by the assessee under the head ‘land account’. On 13th November, 1994 the assessee entered into a development agreement with the developer under which the assessee in exchange of the land in question was entitled to get 45% of the constructed area and the remaining portion of the land and shed continued to be used by the assessee for its own workshop purchase. 

The Revenue Dept. treated income of the owner/assesee from the Development Agreement as of income from business which was rejected by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal who treated the same as capital gain. Hence this appeal.

Judgment

The High Court observed that there is no evidence to show that the lands in question was intended for resale or was converted into stock-in-trade. On the other hand, the assessee used as capital asset for its business purposes and continued to show the land as capital asset even after 1994. Thus, the Tribunal agreed with the assessee that there was no intention on the part of the assessee to enter into an adventure in the nature of trade to deal in the land as its business.

Under the circumstances, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the learned Tribunal.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more