Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Ms Razia Sulaiman on 19 September, 2011
Bench: N.Kumar, Ravi Malimath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE | DATED THIS THE 19™ DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2011 : PRESENT | THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NLKUMAR | a AND | THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTIC E RAVI MALIMATH. ITA. NO! ai2 OF. 2007. BETWEEN: i. THE COMMISSIONER CF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, C.R. BUILDING, oO QUEENS ROAD, BANGALOPE, : 2. THE JOINT COMMI SS STONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE 3, C.P BUI DING, QUEENS ROAD, © BANGALORE. 7 _ APPELLANTS _ (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND FOR SRI M.V.SESHACHALA, ADVS) "AND: MS-RAZIA SULAIMAN L/R CF SRI. SULAIMAN HASHIM 40/4, LEVELLE ROAD, Do BANGALORE, RESPONDENT
_-- (BY SREP.DINESH FOR SRI S.PARTHASARATHI, ADVS) This ITA filed under section 260-A of L.T.Act, 1961 ising out of order dated 29.09.2006 passed. in ITA.No.360/Bang/2005, for the Assessment year 1995-99, praying to formulate the substantial questions ot law --
stated therein, allow the appeal and set aside the orcers passed by the ITAT, Bangalore in ITA.No.360/Bang/ 2005.-- | dated 29.09.2006 confirmi ng the order of the Appeliate Commissioner & confirm the order passed by 'the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range 3, Bangelo: ee This ITA coming on 'for. adr sian = this. day, KUMAR J., delivered the following::__ Bo The revenue has me _ ae the order passed by the ribur vail, "whieh has declined to interfere with cen CO AS idered order passed by the Commiss' foner of income t Tax (appeal s) who has neld that the sale of. the land resu! ns in capital gains and mot the business income as. held by the Assessing Authority | 22. "The -assessee is the co-owner of the land in question. . He entered into am agreement to develop the land owned ' by him with M/s.Prestige Garden me "Developments, Copper Arch No.83, Infantry Road, _Bangalore-560 001, the builder. Thereafter, he has sold only undivided share in the land. The superstructure, did not belong to him and it belonged to the dui iider, Ward, 'had sold the same to the third parties. What the appellant has'. achieved is a cost free superstructure,.the value of which is consideration for undivided share in the land to thé . nominee of the builder. Essentially what ¥ the assessee did was to transfer a part of the land. to vari ious nominees of the builder. The assessee had no cnoi ice in SO far as selling the land is concerne ed. "The Tribuna | has 'set out in detail the terms of the sale deed, een 4 reflects the aforesaid facts, On consideration. of the 'said clauses and the undi sputed facts of the case, the Commissioner of Appeals came to the, concus usion that the assessee was not in the 7 business of selling. of sites or flats. He entered into a joint " "development agreement to get a good price for the land and therefore, what is liable to be paid is capital gains and
- not the tax on his business income as he was not in the : business of selling the flats or the land. Therefore, the Tribunal relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Janaki Ram Bahadur Ram vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta reported in 57 FIR 21 and the judgment of this Court in the case of The Commissioner oF Income Tax and another vs. Hotel Sreeray in ITA | | - No.282/2002 disposed off on on December 2607 Fightly dismissed the appeal uphoidi ing the order oF the: Appel late Commissioner. In the facts of this C case, we » do not! see any justification to interfere. with the weit -considered order passed by the. Appel llate Authoriti : . 7 No substantial question of law is involved it ints spect | Hence, mo ment, The appeal is dismissed. .
Pest