Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that the fact that there was an isolated transaction of sale which generated profit to the assessee would not result in the transaction being treated as an adventure in the nature of trade. Though there was an intention to derive profit on sale of such properties purchased as an investment, the assessee, from the circumstances also, was willing to hold it so that the eventual purchase gave him sufficient profit. This alone would take it out of the definition of adventure in the nature of trade and the solitary instance of sale alone could not characterise the transaction as an adventure in the nature of trade.Followed G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 594 (SC). ( AY.2008-09)
PCIT v. John Poomkudy (2018) 409 ITR 149 /( 2019) 261 Taxman 56/ 174 DTR 370/ 307 CTR 81 (Ker) (HC)
S. 2(14)(iii) : Capital asset-Agricultural land- Solitary instance -Adventure in the nature of trade -Business -Purchase of agricultural land and sale of the said land after few years – Not deriving any income or not making any improvement of land and intention to earn profit cannot be the sole test to treat the transaction as adventure in the nature of trade – Solitary instance of sale alone could not characterise the transactions as an adventure in the nature of trade. [S. 2 (13)]