TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 851X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - SUPREME Court] was misplaced - partnership firm of husband and wife undertook only one project and completed it only after more than eight years - They did not have any business -They realized that developing the property cannot be their business - The period of nine years coupled with the fact that barring one project nothing more was undertaken, leave alone, completed by the firm, that the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e income of ₹ 5,71,03,487/- as income from Long Term Capital Gain instead of business income. 3. The return of income was filed disclosing ₹ 5,87,13,380 /- and it was selected for scrutiny. A detailed questionnaire was dispatched with the statutory notice, to which the Assessee responded. It was noted by the Assessing Officer that the Assessee has sold the property at Khetwadi , 10t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon the property, this would run counter and rather negate the position that the property was held as investment. 5. Both the Commissioner and the Tribunal have found that the reliance placed by the Revenue on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajputana Textile Agencies Ltd. v/s. CIT (1961) 42 ITR 743 was misplaced. The present case would denote that partnership firm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... project nothing more was undertaken, leave alone, completed by the firm, that both the Commissioner and the Tribunal reached this conclusion that the property was acquired for dealing in real estate investment. In such circumstances, we do not find that the Tribunal committed any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Its order cannot be termed as a perverse either. The reliance placed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
