TMI Blog1991 (4) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r there is any evidence on record to support the finding that right from the first purchase in 1942, the intention of the applicant in acquiring the land was stamped with the character of a trading venture and, therefore, the tax, authorities were correct in taxing the profits as business income ? (2) Whether the conclusion of the Tribunal that, right from the first purchase in 1942, the intention of the applicant in acquiring the land was stamped with the character of a trading venture and, therefore, the tax authorities were correct in taxing the profits involved as business income is consistent with the evidence on record and, therefore, valid in law ?" The assessee is a company which carries on a business in manufacture and sale of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee the land purchased by it from 1938 to 1941-42 soon after the purchases were made. The assessee had also taken on lease an area admeasuring 24,798 sq. yds. in the year 1942 from one H. H. Khetsey. During the period from 1942 to 1957, the assessee purchased from BCC the entire area of 2,86,841 sq. yds. already leased out to it, together with another entire area admeasuring 1,021 sq.yds. in the manner indicated below : "Year Seller Area Rate (Sq. Yds) (Rs.) 1942 B. C. C. 87,750 1,12,000 at cost to BBC B. C. C. 1,99,176 1,36,500 plus expenses incurred by it ." 1957 B. C. C. 1,021 2,236 It may be noted at this stage that, though BCC had acquired by purchase land admeasuring 2,86,841 sq. yds., the assessee had purchased ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee had a wire drawing factory situate on the said land and that it had sold the said factory, along with the land on which the factory was situate, to M/s. Krishna Steel Industries. Barring the two instances of sale of large plots, one to M/s. Krishna Steel Industries in 1956-57 and the plot acquired by the Government in 1965-66, the areas of land sold during the period 1951-52 to 1965-66 are very small and in driblets. The Departmental authorities and the Tribunal have treated the surplus in the hands of the assessee from the sale of the aforesaid pieces of land as business profits and did not accept the contention of the assessee that it should be taxed as capital gains. The questions as aforesaid have been referred to this court f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the purchase of the commodity has been found from the surplus funds with the assessee or whether they represent borrowed money ? The Supreme Court pointed out in the above case that, though none of these tests is in itself conclusive, the court must look at the cumulative effect of all the factors and arrive at a conclusion as to whether the transaction was an instance of investment or an adventure in the nature of trade. Let us now apply these tests to the transactions in question before us. There is no finding, one way or the other, by the Tribunal as to whether the money for purchase of the land came from the surplus funds in the hands of the assessee or whether from borrowed money. However, looking to the standing of the company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
