Case Law Details
Synthite Industrial Ltd. Vs CIT (Kerala High Court)
Admittedly, the assessee purchased the land which was a rubber estate. The land was purchased to utilize it for the non-agricultural purpose of expansion of its factory. The rubber trees in the land were slaughter tapped which is a process that immediately precedes the cutting and removal of the rubber trees. The income returned by the assessee, is the income from slaughter tapping of rubber trees. This income was not gained from agricultural operations, but was only from exploitation of standing trees at the end of its useful life. Thereafter, the assessee had converted the land into housing plots leaving out common areas for roads and other purposes. Before that assessee would have cut and removed rubber trees. The asset was brought in as the stock-in-trade of the assessee. Thereafter, gradually the plots were sold to several people and agreements were entered into with many of the buyers for construction of villas. This, therefore, would establish beyond any doubt that though the property was once an agricultural land, its acquisition was for non-agricultural purposes, the assessee did not carry on any agricultural activity in the land and at the relevant date, viz. the date of sale, the land had ceased to be an agricultural land. If that be so, the assessee could not have claimed that the income gained from the sale of the land is from the sale of agricultural land entitling it to exemption from levy of capital gains.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT
These appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA Nos.270/2014, 304/2014, 305/2014 and 192/2015, concerning the Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11.
2. Since the facts and the questions of law are common, these cases were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
