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

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...

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...

Section 138 NI Act: Omission To Mention Nature Of Debt Or Liability In Notice Does Not Render It Invalid

In Crl.MC.No. 3289 of 2015, B.SURENDRA DAS vs STATE OF KERALA, the court was considering a petition seeking to quash the criminal proceedings on the ground that no demand for payment of the amount of the cheque was made by the complainant as per the notice sent by him and therefore, the notice is defective and the proceedings initiated against the accused pursuant to such notice cannot be sustained. The court observed that there is no statutory requirement that the complainant must specifically allege in the complaint that there was a subsisting liability. All the complainant has to do is to raise a demand for payment which is a notice to the debtor giving him time to pay but there is no format in which the notice is to be sent.