Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › All Judgements › Arif Akhatar Hussain vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

Arif Akhatar Hussain vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 24, 2010 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (Arif_50C_development_rights.pdf)


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:

  • V.R.Enterprises vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) The assessee was in possession of primary purchase documents and the payments to the suppliers was through banking channels. The assessee had established corresponding sales before Ld. AO. The books of accounts were audited wherein quantitative details of stock was provided. We are of the considered opinion that there could…
  • 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…
  • ITO vs. Iraisaa Hotels Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) After the passing of the order of the Tribunal the Department has come forward with the final order of the SEBI by stating that, though, it was available at the time of hearing of appeal but it could not be brought to the notice of the Tribunal. Thus, as could…
  • ITO vs. Arihant Estates Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) In the case on hand before us it is an undisputed fact that both assessees have treated the unsold flats as stock in trade in the books of account and the flats sold by them were assessed under the head ‘income from business’. Thus, respectfully following the above said decisions…
  • Mahesh H. Hinduja vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) There is no bar / restriction in the provisions of section 139(5) of the Act that the assessee cannot file a revised return of income after issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act. It is trite law, the assessee can file a revised return of income even in…

Related Judgements

  1. Manoj Aggarwal vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi 5 Member Spl Bench) 

    It is a precondition to invoking s. 158BD that the AO must, in the course of s. 158BC proceedings, record satisfaction that the income belongs to the other person. In the absence of such finding, s. 158BD cannot be invoked. The satisfaction must be objective and not subjective….
  2. Cebon India vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) 

    Where the record did not show that the assessee had been served with a notice under section 143(2) before the due date HELD that the assessment proceedings were not valid as the non-service of the notice was a jurisdictional defect and not merely a procedural defect. Held also that…
  3. DaimlerChrysler India vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune) 

    Under Article 24 (4) of the India-Germany DTAA, Enterprises of India, the capital of which is wholly or partly owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by one or more residents of Germany, cannot be subjected in India to any taxation or any requirement connected therewith which is other or…
  4. DCIT vs. Manjula Shah (ITAT Mumbai Special Bench) 

    In accordance with the principles of purposive interpretation of statutes, Expl. (iii) to s. 48 has to be read to mean that the indexed cost of acquisition has to be computed by taking into account the period for which the asset was held by the previous owner.Read more ›
  5. Goldcrest Exports vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) 

    In the absence of a PE in India, the compensation awarded under the arbitration award was not taxable in India. Consequently, there was no obligation on the assessee to deduct tax u/s 195(1) and no disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) could be madeRead more ›

Leave a Reply

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

*