9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The computation of capital gains based on transactions spread over a period of 27 years versus transactions occurring in each assessment year. Details of the Judgment: The case involved an HUF with different accounting years for business and property. The dispute focused on capital gains from the sale of land at Amritsar during the assessment year 1969-70. The assessee purchased land between 1942-1947 and incurred expenses on improvement, resulting in a total cost of Rs. 2,47,723. The ITO calculated a capital gain of Rs. 55,670 based on the sale of plots measuring 5,673 square yards. However, the AAC and Tribunal disagreed with this approach, emphasizing that the land was developed as a single unit over time, and the profit or loss could only be accurately determined once the entire transaction was complete. The Tribunal highlighted the principle that assessing profits from a single venture should occur when the venture concludes, as seen in previous cases like K. H. Mody's case and CIT v. A. K. A. R. Family. These cases emphasized that until a transaction involving the sale of part of the property is complete, no assessment can be made. The Tribunal rejected the ITO's method of calculating profits per square yard sold, as it did not reflect the interconnected nature of the entire land unit developed by the assessee. The court distinguished the present case from Lalit Ram Mangilal of Cawnpore v. CIT, where profits were assessable due to the distinct nature of the transactions. Additionally, the decision in P. M. Mohamed Meerakhan v. CIT was deemed distinguishable as most plots were sold, allowing for profit calculation. The court also discussed CIT v. Nanduri Suryanarayana, where the entire profit was realized in the first year, unlike the ongoing sale of plots in the current case. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, upholding the Tribunal's decision. It concluded that the ITO's method of proportionate cost calculation for partial plot sales did not justify determining capital gains. The answer to the question referred was against the department, awarding costs to the assessee amounting to Rs. 250.
|
