Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that ; Income earned on sale of floor of building was held to be assessable as capital gains and not as business income .Major portion of the developed building was to remain with the assessee after construction. Sale of one unit therefrom per se would not have constituted an adventure in the nature of trade. There is substantial gap in time between the day of acquisition of the asset and its development and part-sale. The assessee was not a property dealer but a member of the Indian revenue Service, working with the department itself. Only a portion of the property was sold. Ratio in G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 549 (SC) has followed . (AY.2003 -04)
CIT v. Surjeet Kaur (2018) 254 Taxman 214/ 166 DTR 350 /( 2019) 308 CTR 847(Cal.)(HC)
S. 45: Capital gains- Business – Income earned on sale of floor of building was held to be assessable as capital gains and not as business income -The assessee was not a property dealer but a member of the Indian revenue Service, working with the department itself. Only a portion of the property was sold. Profit on sale of land is held to be assessable as capital gains [ S. 2(13 )]