JUDGMENT B.C. Patel, C.J.
In these three references, an identical question has been referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the opinion of this court. The question reads as under :
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that no capital gain was assessable on the ground that the agricultural land in village Nangal Dewat belonging to the assessed did not fall within the definition of capital asset under section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
2. It may be noted that the Tribunal considered the decision in the case of Surjan Singh of Nangal Dewat and rendered the decision. Against the decision of the Tribunal, the revenue approached this court and the case in CIT v. Surjan Singh (2003) 260 ITR 351 (Del). The question raised in the aforesaid appeal reads as under :
2. It may be noted that the Tribunal considered the decision in the case of Surjan Singh of Nangal Dewat and rendered the decision. Against the decision of the Tribunal, the revenue approached this court and the case in CIT v. Surjan Singh (2003) 260 ITR 351 (Del). The question raised in the aforesaid appeal reads as under :
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, capital gains arising on transfer of agricultural lands in village Nangal Dewat, Delhi, is chargeable to tax ?"
3. The court answered the question in the affirmative, that is, in favor of the revenue and against the assessed which no order as to costs. Since the question is the same, lands are of the same village, in view of the aforesaid decision we decide the question in favor of the revenue and against the assessed with no order as to costs.
3. The court answered the question in the affirmative, that is, in favor of the revenue and against the assessed which no order as to costs. Since the question is the same, lands are of the same village, in view of the aforesaid decision we decide the question in favor of the revenue and against the assessed with no order as to costs.