9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (7) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act raises the following questions for our opinion : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 8,000 was taxable as business income ? 2. If the answer to question No. 1 is in the negative, whether the amount is taxable as capital gains? 3. If the answer to both the questions are in the negative, whether the Tribunal was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , and taxed it accordingly, on the basis that the assessee had entered into a number of such transactions in land in the past and had also made substantial gains from such business. Another fact relied upon by the Income-tax Officer for this conclusion was that the five partners taken together had a huge debit balance since many years prior to the assessment year. In appeal by the assessee, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case of the assessee that the assessee is not a dealer in land. Thus, even in respect of the assessment year in question, the Tribunal came to the same conclusion as in the earlier years, viz., that the assessee was not a dealer in land. Since this is a finding of fact, we, accept it as such. Moreover, there is no material or other material from which any contrary conclusion can be drawn. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question can be considered under the head "Other sources". Clearly the amount would be taxable under the head "Other sources", the only possible exception being the amount not being taxable "as income" at all. This aspect we are not required to consider looking to the questions referred to us for our opinion. Thus, the amount of Rs. 8,000 would clearly be taxable under the head "Other sources". ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
