In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has clarified the taxation of profits derived from the sale of property, determining that such transactions, when carried out for investment purposes, should be taxed under ‘capital gains’ rather than as ‘business income’. This decision arose from a series of appeals filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Kochi, challenging the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench.
Important Legal Issues
The primary legal issue in these appeals was whether the profits from the sale of lands by Arun Majeed should be treated as ‘business income’ or ‘capital gains’. The Revenue contended that Majeed’s activities constituted an ‘adventure in the nature of trade’ under Section 2(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, thus making the income taxable as business income. Conversely, Majeed argued that the transactions were investments, and the profits should be treated as capital gains.
Court’s Decision
The Kerala High Court upheld the ITAT’s decision, affirming that the profits from the sale of the properties should be treated as ‘capital gains’. The court’s judgment was based on a detailed examination of the facts and circumstances surrounding the transactions.
Key Observations of the Court
1. Nature of Transactions: The court noted that Majeed’s primary business was running medical shops under the trade name ‘Sevana’. The purchase and sale of properties were not frequent and were not allied or incidental to his primary business.
2. Investment vs. Trade: The court observed that Majeed had consistently disclosed the income from the sale of land as capital gains. There was no material evidence to suggest that the properties were treated as stock-in-trade or that Majeed intended to carry on a real estate business.
3. Burden of Proof: The court emphasized that the burden of proving that the transactions were an ‘adventure in the nature of trade’ rested on the Revenue. The absence of evidence such as external borrowings, advertising for sale, or development activities supported the conclusion that the properties were held as investments.
4. Precedents: The court relied on several precedents, including the Supreme Court’s decision in G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, which clarified that the characterization of a transaction as an adventure in the nature of trade depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Also Read
Case Details
Case Number: ITA No. 229 of 2019, ITA No. 251 of 2019, ITA No. 252 of 2019, ITA No. 254 of 2019
Bench: Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M.
Appellant: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Kochi
Respondent: Arun Majeed, S/o Dr. P.H. Abdul Majeed, “Palak”, Temple Lane, Veliyannur, Thrissur
Lawyers:
– For the Appellant: Sri. P.K.R. Menon (Senior Counsel), Sri. Jose Joseph, Smt. Susie B. Varghese, Sri. Navaneeth N. Nath
– For the Respondent: Anil D. Nair, Telma Raju, P.K. Biju, Edathara Vineeta Krishnan, Anjana A.
