Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter:

Nitco Logistics Pvt. Ltd vs. JCIT (ITAT Amritsar)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 5, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 8, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
CITATION:
(i) Dharmada collections are not taxable as income, (ii) S. 50C does not apply to the purchaser of property

(i) It is not disputed that Dharmarth receipts are not taxable. This is as per the CBDT Circular (supra), as also the following decisions: i. CIT Vs. Bijli Cotton Mills (P) Ltd., (1979) 116 ITR 60 (SC) ii. CIT Vs. Gheru Lal Bal Chand, (1978) 111 ITR 134 (P&H) iii. Addl. CIT Vs. Channoo Lal Damodar Dass, (1978) 113 ITR 759 (All.) iv. Addl. CIT Vs. Dalsukhrai Jaidayal, (1979) 117 ITR 466 (All.) v. Nathu Ram Shiv Narain Vs. CIT, (1982) 134 ITR 625 (P&H) vi. CIT Vs. E.H. Kathawala & Co., (1982) 135 ITR 384 (Bom.) vii. Chunnilal Onkarlal (HUF) Vs. CIT, (1982) 135 ITR 580 (MP) viii. CIT Vs. Ratilal Popatlal Shah, (1984) 43 CTR 4 (Bom.)

(ii) A plain reading of Section 50C of the Act shows that the income under the head “capital gains” is applicable to the sale of immovable property, and not to “purchase” thereof. Therefore, the provisions of Section 50C(1) of the Act are not applicable to the case of a purchaser. It is well settled that the legislature chooses its words with utmost care. When the words of a particular provision are explicit, clear and unambiguous, there is no room for interpretation thereof and as such, the legislative intent qua such a provision is not required to be gone into, as has been wrongly done by the learned CIT(A) in the present case. The section talks of ‘consideration received or accruing’. Period. ‘Consideration paid’ cannot be imported, when the legislature has itself not deemed it fit to incorporate anything to such effect in the section.

5 comments on “Nitco Logistics Pvt. Ltd vs. JCIT (ITAT Amritsar)
  1. right view.
    Revenue seems floating in air is the fact when he ignored so many judgements quoted in the judgement.
    you may need money but you have to legally work, else you will be in trouble!

  2. PROBLEM WITH DEPT IS HALF KNOWLEDGE;

    SEE FOR EG DEPT DOES NOT KNOW LAW OF LIMITATION STIPULATED BY VERY STATUTE – INCOME TAX ACT 1961…SEC 143(2)(ii) ON RETURNS.
    I GIVE YOU AN S C CITATION FOR BENEFIT OF ONE ALL ON LIMITATION…(2013)14 SCC811….BASAVARAJ & ANR VLAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,

  3. Always there are two reviews… one is one proportionality basis i.e in determining on quantum of role of administrative authority – under principle of proportionality is said to be primary review;here court assess on merits under application of proportionality;

    But if administrative action is alleged to be violative of of Art 14 on ground of ‘Arbitrariness’,Wednesbury principle of unreasonableness is applied by court by way of secondary review;

    in other words any administrative can be assessed by courts when affected person approaches the courts concerned for correct interpretation under Art 14 r/w Ar 226!

    that way it appears the honorary tribunal could have assessed .

    citation: Om kumar & others vUOI(2001)2 SCC 386.. indeed it is applicable under Art 144; that every court and every tribunal have to abide by.

  4. Always there are two reviews… one is one proportionality basis i.e in determining on quantum of role of administrative authority – under principle of proportionality is said to be primary review;here court assess on merits under application of proportionality;

    But if administrative action is alleged to be violative of of Art 14 on ground of ‘Arbitrariness’,Wednesbury principle of unreasonableness is applied by court by way of secondary review;

    in other words any administrative can be assessed by courts when affected person approaches the courts concerned for correct interpretation under Art 14 r/w Ar 226!

    that way it appears the honorary tribunal could have assessed .

    citation: Om kumar & others vUOI(2001)2 SCC 386.. indeed it is applicable under Art 144; that every court and every tribunal have to abide by.

  5. No law can ever bypass the natural justice principle.

Leave a Reply

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

*