Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter:

Farid Gulmohamed vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 16, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 13, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
CITATION:
S. 50C does not apply to transfer of leasehold rights in land

Section 50C of the Act provides that if the consideration received or accruing is less than the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority of the State Government for such transfer then the value so adopted or assessed or assessable shall be deemed to be the full value of consideration and the capital gains will be computed accordingly. The phraseology of section 50C of the Act clearly provides that it would apply only to “a capital asset, being land or building or both”. The moot question before us is as to whether such expression would cover the transfer of a capital asset being leasehold rights in land or building. There cannot be a dispute to the proposition that the expression land by itself cannot include within its fold leasehold right in land also. Of-course, leasehold right in land is also a capital asset and we find no fault with this stand of the Revenue. So however, every kind of a ‘capital asset’ is not covered within the scope of section 50C of the Act for the purposes of ascertaining the full value of consideration. Infact, the heading of section itself provides that it is “Special provision for full value of consideration in certain cases”. Therefore, there is a significance to the expression “a capital asset, being land or building or both” contained in section 50C of the Act. The significance is that only capital asset being land or building or both are covered within the scope of section 50C of the Act, and not all kinds of capital assets.

(i) ACIT vs. Nadir Nazarali Dhanani (ITA No. 100/Mum/2013 dated
09.10.2015)
(ii) Kumarpal Mohanlal Jain vs. ITO (ITA No. 7231/Mum/2010 dated
30.11.2015)
(iii) Atul G. Puranik vs. ITO (132 ITD 499)
(iv) ITO vs. Hari Om Gupta (45 ITR (Trib) 137)
(v) ITO vs. Pradeep Steel Re-Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. (155 TTJ 294)
vi) Kancast P. Ltd. vs. ITO (68 SOT 110)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Top