| COURT: |
|
| CORAM: |
|
| SECTION(S): |
|
| GENRE: |
|
| CATCH WORDS: |
|
| COUNSEL: |
|
| DATE: |
(Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: |
December 24, 2010 (Date of publication) |
| AY: |
|
| FILE: |
|
| CITATION: |
|
|
|
S. 50C applies to transfer of development rights in property
The assessee was co-owner of inherited property. He entered into an agreement with the developer for development of the property for a consideration of Rs. 63 lakhs and offered his share of the consideration to capital gains. The Stamp Valuing Authority valued the property at Rs.4.73 crores though the DVO valued it at Rs. 1.81 crores. The AO invoked s. 50C and adopted the DVO’s valuation as the consideration. This was confirmed by the CIT (A). Before the Tribunal, the assessee argued that there was a distinction between “rights in land & building” and the “land and building” and that s. 50C did not apply to “rights” in land & building such as development rights. It was pointed out that the fact that only development rights were transferred was borne out by the fact that the assessee was shown as owner of the property in the municipal records. It was also pointed out that the stamp duty law made a distinction between transfer of development rights and transfer of the property by imposing different rates of duty. HELD dismissing the appeal:
The argument that transfer of development rights does not amount to transfer of land or building and therefore s. 50C is not applicable is not acceptable because u/s 2(47)(v) the giving of possession in part performance of a contract as per s. 53A of the Transfer of property Act is deemed to be a “transfer”. When the assessee received the sale consideration and handed over possession of the property vide the development agreement, the condition prescribed in s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act was satisfied and u/s 2 (47) (v) the transaction of transfer was completed. The fact that the assessee’s name stands in the municipal records does not change the nature of the transaction.
Note: The fact that there is a “
transfer” of development rights was never in dispute. The dispute was whether, given that there is a “
transfer“, s. 50C applies while “
computing” the capital gains. In
Kishori Sharad Gaitonde vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) it was held that s. 50C does not apply to “rights” in land & building like tenancy rights
Related Posts:
- Kaybee Pvt Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Section 92A(2) governs the operation of Section 92A(1) by controlling the definition of participation in management or capital or control by one of the enterprise in the other enterprise. If a form of participation in management, capital or control is not recognized by Section 92A(2), even if it ends up…
- Unnikrishnan V S vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) We find that so far as the ESOP benefit is concerned, while the income has arisen to the assessee in the current year, admittedly the related rights were granted to the assessee in 2007 and in consideration for the services which were rendered by the assessee prior to the rights…
- Karmic Labs Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Section 56 allows the assessees to adopt one of the methods of their choice. But, the AO held that the assessee should have adopted only one method for determining the value of the shares. In our opinion, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the AO to insist upon a particular…
- Anandkumar Jain vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) It is also well – settled that a judicial decision acts retrospectively. According to Blackstonian theory, it is not the function of the Court to pronounce a ‘new rule’ but to maintain and expound the ‘old one’. In other words, the Judges do not make law; they only discover or…
- Volkswagen Finance Pvt Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) business models are constantly evolving, and as the rapid communication modes such as internet and social media have completely transformed the way businesses communicate, it is time that the law is seen in tandem with the ground realities of the business world, rather than in the strict confines of what…
- DCIT vs. JSW Limited (ITAT Mumbai) In the light of the above discussions, we are of the considered view that rather than taking a pedantic view of the rule requiring pronouncement of orders within 90 days, disregarding the important fact that the entire country was in lockdown, we should compute the period of 90 days by…
Leave a Reply