Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs T S Chandrashekar on 25 February, 2010
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, B.V.Nagarathna
IIXJF' LVN"! $.17" PKHKIVFQIFIRH FIILVIW V-\J,_.\lV'K' \J'l" AHKIVHIHNH UTIWJFV MKJIJKV \J|' I\l\l\I'll-ill-\l\Ii |'1I\3l" K-'JUN! 1.)!' NHKEVRIIRRH ""H\)I'1 Lfljufli L)!' Mflflfljflm
2. Thcugh the appeai is admitbw, at the tima af ad32i:i&'~§iL§:3;§'i' the su hm atria? quatisn of Law that arises for in the apgmai was not framed. Thers.~;'fcm-92.,' V the substantiai question of law afoés counssi for tbs parmms "whather jgufcafiasefi a person pa-Iar tar a real! estate seZ§'£}$¢: .§:%:g1gar?!;yv:..';,éaé;rcha:sed ea:-1%: .1_e, "gain or an Incomé. A
3. We hvéififii heardi' E§i'fe%V¥6§Lé;'ni§§i...céunsai for the parties. The facm of _tf:isEa*ppea§:;;ré'e;§s'%§'éreu:-gdaer :-
has flied the return of r'<::V¥%"*«_..i,f_Ijéf_'aésassuwnt yaars 19%-99 c£e¢¥arir:g the _ ificafimg §$:'he.§{a? finder he had fiivscéosed the :;apita¥ gains :3? ' H far having said ha prcsparfifi.
' fha Assassing Gfiicer did not accept the capifiai gains 'V V by the mam and trabw the same as busirsas Ertwnu. Accardingiy, the ordar af agsesasmerst was campésfea Seing aggriessad by $23 same; tha asmssse £9)/.
Iiauv I--1--uv-r-
QIGH LOUIH U? KAKNAEAKR Hiurt LUVQKI ur !\.H!uVHIHIu- mun \.vun- V. m-m..n..-m.- -. were jhffitififiii in treating the irtcume sfiered assessee as cagsitai gain, Accc:-dingly, we suhstantiai quatian of law against_Jthe_4R4a_vé§h'u§_';v§fi£iV'_':n u favcur ef the assassee.
Azcerdingiy, the apnea! is