9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the following question was framed the Court for consideration: "Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that income from sale of flats in question was to be assessed as business profits and not as long term capital gains?" 3. The facts of the case are that the Assessee, (who died during the pendency of this appeal and is substituted by her legal representatives) was a housewife, having no source of income other than the pension of her deceased husband. The Assessee was the owner of property No. F-23, Hauz Khas, New Delhi wherein she was residing since 1956. 4. The Assessee entered into an agreement with M/s Exclusive Properties (hereinafter 'the Builder') on 27th May, 1991 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 992 not as long term capital gain but as a business income. 8. After dismissal of the appeals of the Assessee by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the ITAT by orders dated 13th January, 1998 and 20th March, 2003 respectively the Assessee filed the present appeal. 9. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties. 10. The principal question to be decided is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, it may be said that having sold two flats that fell to her share pursuant to the collaboration agreement with the Builder, the Assessee had undertaken an 'adventure' in the nature of trade warranting the receipt to be treated as business income. 11. The issue, it appears, is no longer res integra. In G. Venkataswa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efrom were to be taxed under the head "income from business or profession." This Court was of the view that there was no change in the character of the said plot from the year of its allotment till the year the flats were constructed thereon. There was no material on record from which it could be said that the assessee ever had the intention to exploit the plot as a commercial venture. Merely because six flats had been constructed out of which four were sold to friends it would not show that it was 'an adventure in the nature of trade'. 14. The facts of the present case are no different. Merely, because the Assessee sold two plots that fell to her share pursuant to collaboration agreement in respect of the property owned by her since 1956, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
