M.S.SANKLECHA, J. - (1.) These two Appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenge the order dated 25th February, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The common impugned order dated 25th February, 2015 is in respect of Assessment Year 2008-09 of the two Respondents who are father and son, jointly owing property at Bangalore.
(2.) Mr. Chhotaray, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue urges the following identical reframed questions of law, in both the appeals, for our consideration: "(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that there was no transfer of land within the meaning of Section 2(47)(v) of the Act and no capital gains arose? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that there was no transfer of land within the meaning of Section 2(47)(vi) of the Act and no capital gains arose? (c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the full value of the property transferred was Rs. 55 Crores for the purposes of computing capital gains? (d) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee had converted capital asset into stockintrade? (e) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee had converted capital asset into stockintrade on the date when he made the application for conversion of agricultural land into nonagricultural land, particularly when that was even the claim of the assessee? (f) Without prejudice to the claim of the Revenue that there was no conversion of capital asset into stock-in-trade, whether the Tribunal, having held that there was conversion of capital asset into stock-in-trade, was justified in simultaneously holding that the assessee was liable to tax on capital gains u/s. 45(2) of the Act when the capital asset was transferred to M/s. Godrej Properties Ltd.,? (g) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Tribunal is perverse?"
(3.) The Respondent-Assessee (father and son) had during the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2008-09 had, on 20th April, 2007 entered into a Development Agreement with M/s. Godrej Properties Ltd. By the above agreement dated 20th April, 2007, 13 acres of land at Tumkur Road, Bangalore owned by the Respondent, was given for development to M/s. Godrej Properties Ltd., In terms of the Development Agreement dated 20th April, 2007, an amount of Rs. 13.75 Crores was paid as a deposit to the Respondent by M/s. Godrej Properties Ltd., The above agreement, inter alia, gave powers to M/s. Godrej Properties Ltd., to obtain various permission, commence construction of homes and sell them. The agreement, inter alia, provided that Rs. 55 Crores was to be the notional costs of the land and on sale of the constructed property, 30% of its sale proceeds, were to be received by Respondent from M/s. Godrej Properties Ltd. This, after having paid an amount of Rs. 55 Crores being the costs of the land to the Respondent.;