DR. M. K. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) AS the question of law referred to us for our opinion in these referemces imolve identical questions of law with only some textual changes, we propose to dispose of these referance by this common judgment. ITR 259-261/1977 : 1. The present references application under Section 256 (1) of the Income Tax Act relate to the assessment years 1967-68, 1968- 69 and 1969-70- As the questions of law arising for consideration in respect of the aforesaid assessment years were common a consolidated satement the case was drawn up by the Tribunal whereby the following live questions of law have been referred for our opinion :- (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the compensation amounts of Rs. 10,371. 00 Rs. 11,656. 00 and Rs. 1625,117. 00 received by the assessee for the assessent years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 for acquisition of its lands by the Government are assessable to tax as profits of the assessee s business ? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the the above compensation amounts can be said to be agricultural income within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (a) of the income Tax Act, 1961 and as such exempt from Income Tax. (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the character of the assessee s lands changed from stock-in-trade and the same stood sterilized and converted into a capital asset as a result of the issue of the Notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ? (4) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, income from one half of the property situate at 16, Aurangzeb Road has rightly been held to be assessable under the head property ? (5) If the answer to question No. 4 is in the negative whether the claim for repairs and depreciation has been rightly restricted to one-half of the claim ? ( 2 ) M/s DLF Housing and Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. was a company carrying on business as colonizers by purchasing developing and selling plots of land in and around Delhi. (5) If the answer to question No. 4 is in the negative whether the claim for repairs and depreciation has been rightly restricted to one-half of the claim ? ( 2 ) M/s DLF Housing and Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. was a company carrying on business as colonizers by purchasing developing and selling plots of land in and around Delhi. In the course of its business, the company acquired certain agricultural lands in certain villages around Delhi, out of which some land was acquired by the Government through a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act followed by a declaration issued under Selection 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. In pursuance of the said acquisition in accordance with the provisions of the Act the company received compensation for the land after assessment under the Land Acquisition Act. The Income Tax officer while assessing the company held that the company was a dealer in lands and accordingly, the said acquired land constituted HIP company s stock-in trade and consequently the compensation received by the company was liable to be taxed as income in the. three assessment years under consideration. On appela at the instance of the company the Appellant Assistant Commissioner, following his earlier order for the A assessment year 1965-66 decided the issue against the company and upheld the order of assessment passed by the Income Tax Officer. IP. the meantime DLF Housing and Construction Company was amalgamated into DLF United Limited and accordingly the present assessee preferred appeals to the Tribunal. By that time however, the assessee s appeal pertaining to the assessment year 1963-64 raising similar contentions came up for consideration and decided by the Full Bench of the Tribunal. Accordingly, for the assessment years under considering the Tribunal following the judgment and order passed by the Full Bench of the Tribunal affirmed the conclusion of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and rejected the assessee s appeals. The petition filed by the assessee seeking a reference to the High Court under Section 256 (1) came up for consideration before the Tribunal in respect of the aforesaid appellate orders and the Tribunal referred the aforesaid questions of law to this court for its opinion holding the same as questions of law. The petition filed by the assessee seeking a reference to the High Court under Section 256 (1) came up for consideration before the Tribunal in respect of the aforesaid appellate orders and the Tribunal referred the aforesaid questions of law to this court for its opinion holding the same as questions of law. ITR 287/1977 : ( 3 ) THIS reference arises out of the application filed by the assessee under Section 256 (1) of the Income Tax Act and relates to the assessment year 1966-67. In this reference the following questions of law have been referred by the Tribunal for our opinion holding the same to be questions of law :-- (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, compensation of Rs. 11. 802. 00 received by the assessee for the acquisition of its lands by the Government is assessable to tax as profits of the assessee s business ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, compensation of Rs, 11,802. 00 was its agricultural income within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and as such exempt from Income Tax ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the character of the asessee s lands changed from stock-in-trade and the same stood sterilized and was converted into a capital asset as a result of the issue of notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ? (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, income from one half of the property situate at 16. Auranazeb Road, New Delhi has rightly been held to be assessable under the head property ? ( 4 ) THE facts of this reference, out of which the aforesaid questions of law have arisne are similar and identical with that of the ITR No. 259-261 of 1977 and in order to avoid repetition of the facts we do not propose to set out the facts of the said case herein. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the parties conceded before us that the order of the Special Bench referred to and relied upon by the Tribunal in the aforesaid references has been the subject matter of reference to this court and the same has already been answered in favour of the assessee. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the parties conceded before us that the order of the Special Bench referred to and relied upon by the Tribunal in the aforesaid references has been the subject matter of reference to this court and the same has already been answered in favour of the assessee. The said decision of this court is reported in DLF United Limited Vs. Commissioner of income Tax : 161 ITR page 714 (1 ). Our attention has also been drawn to Some other decisions of this court under similar circumstances relating to the same assessee in respect of the assessment years 1961-62, 1964-65 and also for the assessment year 1965-66. The questions of law referred to in the aforesaid references have also been answered in favour of the assessee in DLF Housing and Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ; reported in 141 (2) I m 806 and DLF United Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax : reported in 158 ITR 342 (3) and in the case of DLF United Limited and others Vs. CIT ; 161 ITR 709 (4 ). ( 6 ) AT this stage we may specifically refer to the decision of this court in DLF United Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax : reported in 161 ITR. 714 wherein the following questions were referred to this court for its opinion in respect of the same assesses for the assessment year 1963-64 : " (1) Whether, on the. facts and in the circumstances of the case the compensation of Rs. 2,33,489. 00 and enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,04. 924. 00 received by the assessee for the acquisition of it lands by the Government is assessable to tax as the profits of the assessee s business? ( 3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. the compensation of Rs. 2. 33. 489. 00 and enhanced compensation of Rs, l,04,924. 00 was its agricultural income within the meaning of Section 2 (1) of the In come Tax Act. 1961. and as such exempt from income tax ? (3) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the character of the assessee s land changed from. stock- in-trade and the same stood sterilized and was converted into a capital asset as a result of the issue of cation under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894? 1961. and as such exempt from income tax ? (3) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the character of the assessee s land changed from. stock- in-trade and the same stood sterilized and was converted into a capital asset as a result of the issue of cation under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894? (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case income from one half of the property situate at 16, Aurangzeb Road, has rightly been held to be assessable under the head property ? (5) If the answer to question No. 4 is in negative, whether the claim for repairs and de[reciation has been rightly restricted to one-half of the claim? ( 7 ) THIS court while answering the questions of law referred to this court in the said reference considered the ratio of the decision of this court in respect of the same assessee in DLF Housing and Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ; reported in 141 ITR 807. On consideration of the ratio of the aforesaid decision this court while answering the reference laid that except for the amounts question No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 now referred are the same with some textual change" Question No. 3, according to this court was different and that question No. 3 was a new question. After considering the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the rival parties this court in the said reference held that the compensation amount not assessable as profit from the business and accordingly answered question No. 1 referred to in the said reference in negative. The court further held in respect of question No 2 that the compensation paid to the assessee is not agricultural income of the assessee but is capital gain which is exempt under the Income Tax Act and accordingly the said question was answered in the negative The question No. 3 was held to be academic by this court but still this court held that on ihe facts of the case the notification under Section 4 has no effect on the character of the acquired land. far as the question No. 4 of the said reference is concerned the so was answered in the affirmative and against the assessee and the court further held that the question No. 5 did not arise because of its terms. far as the question No. 4 of the said reference is concerned the so was answered in the affirmative and against the assessee and the court further held that the question No. 5 did not arise because of its terms. ( 8 ) MR. K. B. Ahuja, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that all the five questions of law referred to the court for its opinion in the case of DLF United Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) are identical and similar to the questions of law which arise for our consideration in the presemt. reference Therfore the learned counsel submitted that following the ratio of the aforesaid decision of this court reported in DLF United Limited Vs. COmmissioner of Income Tax; 161 ITR para 714 the answer to the aforesaid questions would be in favour of till assessee 90 far as the first three questions are cencerned and so far. A as the 4th question is concerned the same should be answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. According to him the present reference, in all respects is covered by the aforesaid decision of this court reported in 161 ITR page 715. He further submitted that in view of the fact that the Full Bench decision of the Tribunal, on which the tribunal has relied upon for coming to its decision in the presenet references was the judgment and order against which the aforesaid reference reported in 161 ITR 714 arose and therefore, the decision of this court in the present references on the question of law should not deviate from that of the earlier decision of this court, the facts being identical and the view of this court all along being consistent. ( 9 ) WE may at this stage refer to another important aspect related to the present case. Subsequent to the aforesaid decision of this court reported in 161 ITR 714 this court had occasion to deal with another reference of the same assessee in respect of the assessment year 1965-66. The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue in the said reference also made an endeavour to distinguish the facts in the said reference from that of the case reported in 161 ITR 714. The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue in the said reference also made an endeavour to distinguish the facts in the said reference from that of the case reported in 161 ITR 714. This court however, on consideration of the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties held that on the facts the question of law which were referred to this court for opinion had to be answered in favour of the assessee because this court found that the reference made to this court from the order of the Special Bench, referred to earlier had been answered in favour of the assessee so far as the 3 questions which were involved in the said reference were concerned. The said decision in the case of DLF United Limited Vs. Commissioner, of Income Tax, Delhi, is also reported in 161 ITR page 709. In the said decision of this court it was held that the High Court is bound to confine itself to the facts as found by the Tribunal or as admitted before it. Relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Panipat Woollen and General Mills Limited : reported in 103 ITR 66 (5) this court held that while answering the reference the High Court cannot go behind the statement of facts. In the aforesaid decisions in the case of DLF United limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) this court held in respect of question No. I that prior to the acquisition of the land in question and even till the date of the award the asses- see mado no attempt to transfer or alter the character of agricultural land and that the assessee had not taken steps to develop the lands in question in its normal line of business, with a view to parcel it out into plots for sites to be utilised for housing and commercial buildings. This court further held that in other words the agricultural lands purchased originally by the assesses for urbanisation or conversion into building plots remaned agricultural land till the acquisition and payment of compensation, and in view of Tax New Delhi. This court further held that in other words the agricultural lands purchased originally by the assesses for urbanisation or conversion into building plots remaned agricultural land till the acquisition and payment of compensation, and in view of Tax New Delhi. A the said imding this court held that the first question has to be answered in the negative, i. e. the profits were not business profits With regard to the second question this court found that as the compensation had been paid for the acquisition of agricultural land, the question really involved a determination as to whether the price paid for the land by way of compensation could be included within the definition of agricultural income. It was further held that agricultural land was excluded from the definition of capital asset occurring in Section 2 (14) (iii) and accordingly any gain resulting from the acquisition of agricultural land was not income, and accordingly the answer to the said question was that the compensation amount was not. income. ( 10 ) MR. B. Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue en the other hand submitted before us that the assesses is and has been a leading coloniser of Delhi and that the facts as found by the Assessing Officer for all the assessment years involved in the present reference namely assessment years 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69 and 1969-70 are altogether different from the facts which were there in the assessment year 1961-62, in the case of DLF Housing and Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT; reported in 141 ITR 806. The learned counsel in support of the aforesaid submissions have strenously taken us through the ratio of the decision reported in 161 ITR 714 and also the statement of case of the present reference. The learned counsel also drew our attention to the various orders passed by the Income Tax Officer and also the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the appellate order of the Tribunal involved in the present reference and on the basis thereof made a valiant effort to distinguish the facts of the present reference on the ground that so far as the land involved in the present references is concerned the assessee dealt with the same for the purpose of their business namely-purchasing the same plotting into house sites for the purpose of sale of the same in the course of their ordinary course of business. He submitted that The questions so far as these years of assessments are concerned, have to be decided, therefore, on materially different facts ( 11 ) WE have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. It is a well settled proposition of law that a reference in Income Tax matters is on a question of law and that this question of law has to be answered by the High Court on. the basis of facts and circumstances either found by the Tribunal or admitted by the parties before the Tribunal. The questions referred to us for our opinion start with the words "whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. " The Supreme Court has interpreted the aforesaid wordings in the decisions in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Calcutta Agency Limited : 19 ITR 191 (6) and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Panipat Woollen and General Mills Co. Ltd. ; 103 ITR 66 wherein 64v HCD/97-19 the Supreme Court held that the aforesaid wordings imply that the High Court is bound to confine itself to the facts as found by the Tribunal and therefore the High Court cannot go behind the statement of facts referred to it for its opinion on the question of law referred. ( 12 ) THE statement of case relating to the present references nowhere stales that the character of the lands and nature of the compensation received in the above years on the acquisition of the agricultural lands are different from those which were the subject matter of income tax references in the earlier assessment years already decided by this court and referred to above. We have carefully gone through the statement of facts referred to us in the present reference? and therein we could not find any finding recorded by the Tribunal that the agricultural lands purchased by the assessee which were subsequently acquired under the land acquisition proceedings relating to the assessment years under consideration were developed lands or that the same were parcelled or plotted for sites to be utilised for houses and commercial buildings. and therein we could not find any finding recorded by the Tribunal that the agricultural lands purchased by the assessee which were subsequently acquired under the land acquisition proceedings relating to the assessment years under consideration were developed lands or that the same were parcelled or plotted for sites to be utilised for houses and commercial buildings. On the other hand the tribunal has in categorical terms in the said statement of facts recorded that the facts and circumstances are identical and the contentions urged are also the same for the assessment years under consideration with that of the facts and circumstances in respect of the assessment year 1963-64. ( 13 ) IN our opinion it is not open for the Revenue to challenge the findings of the Tribunal and the statements recorded in the statement of case at the time of finalising the statement of case that the facts and circumstances and the contentions in the above reference are identical to those in the assessment years 1963-64. On going through the statement of case of the present references and also the decision of the case reported in 161 ITR 714 We are of conclusive opinion that there is no material on record and none has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the Revenue to show that the nature of land and the compensation received in the assessment years under consideration are of different nature than that of the land involved for the assessment year 1963-64 As we have come to a definite conclusion that the facts in relation to the assessment years under consideration with which we are now concerned are on all material particulars similar to or identical with those that came up for consideration in 1964-65, we have to answer the questions in terms of the answers given by this court in respect of the reference in DLF United Limped Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 161 ITR 714 inasmuch as we respectfully agree with the reasoning of this court, in the aforesaid references. Besides the said view appears to be the consistent view of this court with which we respectfully agree. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 161 ITR 714 inasmuch as we respectfully agree with the reasoning of this court, in the aforesaid references. Besides the said view appears to be the consistent view of this court with which we respectfully agree. ( 14 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted before us that as to whether surplus arising on the acquisition of land in the hands of the assessee is a profit of business or adventure in the nature of trade or is a capital receipt or revenue receipt is a finding of fact and therefore, this court is not entitled to disturb the said finding of fact. In support of the aforesaid submission the learned counsel for the Revenue also relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Calcutta Vs. Associated Industrial Development Co. P. Ltd. . reported in 82 ITR page 586 (7) and Commissioner of Income Tax. Bombay City-1 Vs. Greases Cotton and Co. Ltd. 68 ITR 200 (8 ). ( 15 ) WE have carefully gone through the ratio of the aforesaid two decisions and in our opinion the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case reported in 68 ITR 200 does not support the case of the Revenue. On the other hand the decision in the case reported in 82 ITR 586 is a decision on the particular facts of the case where the High Court on reference proceeded to consider the question from an entirely new angle which was never the case of the assessees and in view of the said facts the Supreme Court held that it was not open to the High Court to go into the question whether the shares have been held by way of investment as no decision of the Tribunal was invited thereon and that the High Court had pone beyond the maters which were the subject matter of controversy before the Tribunal. On the other hand we may usefully refer to two other decisions of the Supreme Court in Ramnarain Sons (P) Ltd Vs. CIT, Bombay reported in 41 ITR 534 (9) and Oriental Investment Co. Ltd. Vs. On the other hand we may usefully refer to two other decisions of the Supreme Court in Ramnarain Sons (P) Ltd Vs. CIT, Bombay reported in 41 ITR 534 (9) and Oriental Investment Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay: reported in 32 ITR 664 (10) wherein the Supreme Court in considering whether a transaction is or is not an adventure in the nature of trade held that inference on such a cuestion raised by the Tribunal on the facts found is a mixed Question of law and facts. Similarly in 32 ITR 664 (supra) the Supreme Court further held that the question regarding the characteristics of the business of dealing in shares or that of an investor is a mixed question of fact and law. Besides similar facts and circumstances and on identical uestions this court has answered the questions of law referred to this court for earlier years of assessment in favour of the assesse, the relevance of which and the fact thereof cannot be lost sight of by us. Therefore the second submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue has no force at all and is rejected. ( 16 ) AFTER giving our decision on the aforesaid two submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue we are left with to decide the last contention raised by the Revenue that the insertion of explanation to the definition of agricultureal income in Section 2 (1a) of the Income Tax Act by Finance Act. 1989 with retrospective effect from 1-4-1970 makes a difference to the A approach to the answer to the question in the above reference The aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue is to be dealt with by us particularly in view of the fact that the aforesaid amendment relied upon by the learned counsel for the Revenue and insertion thereof came to be made in the year 1989 with retrospective effect from 1-4-1970 i. e. prior to the decisions of this court on the identical facts rendered in respect to the same assessee for earlier years of assessment. As we have already held that the surplus of the compensation amount arising as a result of acquisition of agricultural land in question was a capital receipt and not the income at all, the question of change in the definition of agricultural income because of the insertion of the explanation has no relevance in the present context. ( 17 ) HOWEVER, even assuming the said explanation to Section 2 (1a) inserted with effect from 1-4-1970 by Finance Act, 1989 is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case as submitted by the learned counsel for the Revenue, let us now examine whether the contention raised by the learned coun,sel for the Revenue that it is clarificatory in nature and would apply to all assessments even prior to 1-4-1970 is valid or has any substance in it. The learned counsel submitted before us that the said explanation inserted in the definition of agricultural income in Section 2 (1a) of the Act by Finance Act. 1989 although was given restrospective effect from 1-4-1970, the same is clarificatory in nature and would apply to all the assessment even prior to 1-4-1970 and in that view the questions of law referred to us for our opinion have to be answered in favour of the. Revenue. In support of his submission the learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT. Madras Vs. P. Doraiswamy Chetty: reported in 1831tr. 559 (11) where the Supreme Court was considering explanation 2 added to Section 64 by Finance Act, 1979 w. e. f. 1-4-1980 according to which the expression "income" in Section 64 includes loss and in that context the Supreme Court held that the same would apply for the earlier years also. The said decision of the Supreme Court while arriving at the aforesaid conclusion relied heavily upon the ratio of the decision in an earlier of CIT. Bangalore Vs. J. H. Gola reported in 156 ITR 323, dealing with a provision similar to that of Section 16 (3) of the 1992 Act and interpreted the term income , as including loss even without the aid of any explanation, as also on the basis of circular of the Board issued in 1944 to the same effect. It is however significant to note that no retrospective effect as. It is however significant to note that no retrospective effect as. such was given to the said explanation -at the time of amendment as has been done in the case of explanation inserted in Section -2 (IA) of the Act giving respective effect specifically from. 1-4-1970. Since a specifc date has been provided for by the Legislature for operation of the amendment retrospective effect i. e. from 1-4-1970, in our opinion,. the said explanation has no effect at all and cannot apply to an assessment proceeding prior to the period 1-4-1970- In this connection, we mayappropriately refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in Keshavji Ravji and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. ; 183 ITR 1 (12), in which the court while considering explanation I to Section 40 (b) inserted in 1984 by Taxation Laws (Amendment) Bill, 1984 made applicable w. e. f. 1-4-1985 held that : "an explanation , generally speaking, is intended to explain the meaning of certain phrases and expressions contained in a statutory provision. There is no general theory as to the effect and intendment of an Explanation except that the purpose and intedment of the explanation are determined by its own words. An explanation, depending on its language, might supply or take away something from the contents of a provision: It is also true that an explanation may-this is what Sri Ramachandran suggests in this case-be introduced by way of abundant caution in order to clear any mental cob-webs surrounding the meaning of a statutory provision spun by interpretative errors and to place what the Legislature consider to be the true. meaning. beyond any. controversy or doubt. Hypothetically, that such- can be the possible purpose of an explanation cannot be doubted. But the question is whether, in the present case) explanation 1 inserted into Section 40 (b) in the year 1984 has had that effect. The notes on Clauses appended to the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Bill, -1984, say- that clause 10 which seeks to amend-section 40 will take effect from 1st April, 1985, and Will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 1985-86 and subsequent years. The notes on Clauses appended to the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Bill, -1984, say- that clause 10 which seeks to amend-section 40 will take effect from 1st April, 1985, and Will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 1985-86 and subsequent years. The express prospective operation and effectuation of the explanation might, perhaps, be a factor necessarily detracting, from any evincement of the intent OB- the part of the Legislature that the explanation was intended more as a legislative exposition or clarification of the existing law than as a change in the law as it then obtained. " This court had occasion to consider the aforesaid observations of, the Supreme Court in a case where also a similar question in respect of ffect of an amendment of explanation being added to the substance provision arose for consideration. This court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sita Ram Kharaiti Lal; reported in 211 ITR 401 (13) after noticing the said observation of the Supreme Court held thus- "the aboveobservation in no way advances the case of the Revenue before us. The effect to be given to an explanatory amendment depends upon several factors, including its language. The concluding sentence in the above observation indicates that, when the Legislature has made the Explanation operative prospectively bywords expressed therein, its operation shall have to be confined to the future date. The same reasoning would govern the case when Parliament limited the retrospectively of the Explanation with effect from a particular date. In such a situation, giving further retrospectively to the Explanation will be hijecking the intention of the Leislature into an impermissible area. The declaration and the clarification involved in Explanation 2, are only for the purposes of assessments with effect from April 1, 1976. This provision widens the concept of "entertainment expenditure" by including in its scope such of the expenditures which are otherwise traditionally understood as routine business expenditures incurred in connection with "business-hospitality". Therefore, the widened meaning cannot be extended to past pariods when the amended Explanation 2 was not in operation. In view of the aforesaid conclusion reached by us the last submission advanced by the learned counsel for the Revenue also has not merit and is rejected. Therefore, the widened meaning cannot be extended to past pariods when the amended Explanation 2 was not in operation. In view of the aforesaid conclusion reached by us the last submission advanced by the learned counsel for the Revenue also has not merit and is rejected. ( 18 ) IN view of the aforesaid conclusions in respect of the questions of law which have been referred to us for our opinion, we propose to give the same answer following the previous judgements of this Court referred to above Accordingly, in respect of ITR 259-261/1977 we answer question No. 1 in the negative on the basis that the compensation amount is not assessable as profit from the assessee s business whereas question No. 2 is answered in the negative on the basis that the compensation paid is not agricultural income but is a capital gain which is exempted under the Income Tax Act as arising from agricultural land question No. 3 is held to be academic but still we answer the same by holding that the notification under Section 4 has no effect on the character of the acquired land. At the same time we also hold that the said question is purely academic and accordingly requires no answer at all On the other hand. we nnswer question No. 4 in the affirmative and against the assessee. We also hold A that question No. 5 does not arise because of its textual terms. However, in view of our conclusion reached in respect of ITR No. 259- 261/1977 we also answer the questions of law involved in Income Tax Reference No. 28711977 we answer the Question Nos. 1 and 2 in the negative. We further hold and answer Question No. 3 to be academic and accordingly requiring no answer but still holding that the notification under Section 4 has no effect on the character of the acquired land. However, so far as question No. 4 is concerned we answer the same in the affirmative and against the assesses. ( 19 ) IN the result the references are answered and disposed of accondingly. No order as to costs.