PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TEX-18 vs. MRS. MANJEET KOUR
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that it was not persuaded to find the ITAT's reasoning to be perverse or suffering from any legal infirmity. Regarding the split of consideration, the Court noted that this aspect was not urged by the Revenue in its cross-appeal before the ITAT. Furthermore, the Court found that the Assessee had offered a satisfactory explanation for splitting the composite consideration into amounts for land and building. Consequently, the Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's order. The appeal was dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal, leaving no issues undecided.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-18, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated September 16, 2015, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT's order pertained to ITA Nos. 3234/Del/2013 and 3749/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year 2009-10. The dispute concerned the classification of income arising from the sale of property. The Assessing Officer (AO) had treated it as business income, while the Assessee, Manjeet Kaur, offered it as Long Term and Short Term Capital Gain. The Revenue also contended that the Assessee's split of the composite consideration for land and building lacked a rational basis and sought restoration to the AO for re-computation. The High Court noted that this aspect was not urged in the Revenue's cross-appeal before the ITAT.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the ITAT erred in holding that the income from the sale of property should be treated as Long Term and Short Term Capital Gain, as offered by the Assessee, instead of business income, as determined by the Assessing Officer (AO)? (Question of law and fact, concerning the nature of income). 2. Whether there was a rational basis for the Assessee to split the composite consideration for land and building, necessitating restoration to the AO for computation of capital gains? (Question of law and fact, concerning the valuation and computation of capital gains). Assessee's Contentions: The Assessee offered the income as Long Term and Short Term Capital Gain. The Assessee provided a satisfactory explanation for splitting the composite consideration into amounts for land and building. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue argued that the ITAT erred in treating the income as capital gains instead of business income. The Revenue contended that there was no rational basis for the Assessee to split the composite consideration and that the matter should be restored to the AO for computing capital gains. The Revenue relied on the AO's assessment treating the income as business income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 27 + ITA 182/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-18 Appellant Through: Mr. P. Roy Chaudhuri, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms.Lakshmi Gurung, Jr. Standing counsel. versus MANJEETKAUR .....Respondent CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER % 08.03.2016 1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') by the Revenue is directed against the impugned order dated 16'^ September 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (TTAT') in ITA Nos. 3234/Del/2013 and 3749/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The main question sought to be urged for consideration by this Court is whether the ITAT erred in holding that the income from sale ofproperty in the facts and circumstances ofthe case, should be treated as income from Long Term and Short Term Capital Gain as per the Assessee instead ofbusiness income as per the Assessing Officer ('AO'). 3. Having perused the impugned order of the ITAT the Court is not persuaded to hold that the reasoning ofthe ITAT is perverse or suffers from anylegal infirmity. ITA 182/2016 Page I of2 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified
J" \ \ 4. It was then contended that there was no rational basis for the Assessee to split up the composite consideration into one for land and another for building and therefore, the matter should be restored tothe file ofthe AO for computing the capital gain. 5. The Court finds that the Revenue had in fact filed across appeal before the ITAT against the order dated 25"^ March 2013 ofthe Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The above aspect was not urged before the Revenue in its cross appeal. Even otherwise the Court finds that the Assessee has offered a satisfactory explanation for the splitting up the consideration. 6. No substantial question oflaw arises. The appeal is dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J VIBHUBAKHRU, J MARCH 08,2016 Rk ITA182/2016 „ ^ Page 2 of2
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Shreekanth Enterprises vs. Joint Commissioner AppealsUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- Sharad Ashok Agarwal vs. State Of Maharashtra Through G.P. And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
