9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessed under the head of capital gain and not under the head of profit arising from adventure - in view of our preceding analysis, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same stands dismissed - - - - - Dated:- 31-3-2003 - Judge(s) : DIPAK MISRA., A. K. SHRIVASTAVA. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by DIPAK MISRA J.- This is an appeal preferred under section 260A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted that the controversy involved in this case is no more res integra inasmuch as this court in I.T.R. No. 123 of 1998 (CIT v. Smt. Saraswati Jaiswal [2003] 264 ITR 358) decided on February 5, 2003, has answered the reference preferred by the Revenue under section 256(2) of the Act against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Mr. Rohit Arya, learned counsel for the Revenue, made enorm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te Tribunal has considered this matter at length. The conclusion of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is recorded in para. 6 of its order. From the perusal of the same, it is seen that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has recorded the finding that in this case, the assessee had not purchased the land, but it was received by her as per the will of her late mother. It was further found that the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case at hand, the Tribunal has addressed itself to the factual situation and arrived at the conclusion that the assessee was entitled to be assessed under the head of capital gain and not under the head of profit arising from adventure. We are disposed to think that the whole analysis is based on appreciation of facts and it has been clearly held by the apex court in G. Vankataswami Naidu v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
