:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.186 OF 2005 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL LODG. NO.138 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Income Tax. ..Appellant. Vs. R.M.Estate. ..Respondent. Mr.P.S. Sahadevan for the Appellant. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED : 24th March,2008. PC : 1. There is a delay of 223 days.Considering the cause shown, delay condoned. Office to register the appeal. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.) :2: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL LODG. NO.138 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Income Tax. ..Appellant. Vs. R.M.Estate. ..Respondent. Mr.P.S. Sahadevan for the Appellant. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED : 24th March,2008. PC : 1. The questions of law are set out in Para-4 of the appeal memo. The main question is Whether the profit on sale of land is assessable as capital gain or as income from business? The Commissioner (Appeals) as also the ITAT held that the initial intention of the assessee was to have the land in question as capital asset and the land was sold without any activity thereon and accordingly the transaction is not an adventure in the nature of trade and accordingly liable to pay tax only as capital gains in the hands of the assessee. These are two concurrent findings of fact. 2. In the light of above, the questions of law as framed would not arise and consequently, the appeal dismissed. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)