| COURT: | Bombay High Court |
| CORAM: | M. S. Sanklecha J, S. C. Gupte J |
| SECTION(S): | 50C |
| GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
| CATCH WORDS: | capital gains, stamp duty valuation |
| COUNSEL: | Sanjiv Shah |
| DATE: | October 24, 2016 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | December 5, 2016 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | 2007-08 |
| FILE: | Click here to download the file in pdf format |
| CITATION: | |
| S 50C does not apply to transfer of land and building, being leasehold property | |
The issue before the Tribunal was whether Section 50C of the Act would be applicable to transfer of leasehold rights in land and buildings. The Tribunal followed its decision in Atul G. Puranik vs. ITO (ITA No.3051/Mum/2010) decided on 13 May 2011 which held that Section 50C is not applicable while computing capital gains on transfer of leasehold rights in land and buildings. On appeal by the department to the High Court HELD dismissing the appeal:
The Revenue has not preferred any appeal against the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Atul Puranik (supra). Thus, it could be inferred that it has been accepted. Our Court in DIT vs. Credit Agricole Indosuez 377 ITR 102 (dealing with Tribunal order) and the Apex Court in UOI vs. Satish P. Shah 249 ITR 221 (dealing with High Court order) has laid down the salutary principle that where the Revenue has accepted the decision of the Court/Tribunal on an issue of law and not challenged it in appeal, then a subsequent decision following the earlier decision cannot be challenged. Further, it is not the Revenue’s case before us that there are any distinguishing features either in facts or in law in the present appeal from that arising in the case of Atul Puranik (supra). In the above view, the question as framed by the Revenue does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained.
IMPROMPTU
It needs to be recalled that, according to a view as repeatedly shared on this website itself, besides elsewhere, sec 50C , so also certain other provisions -for instance, sec 194 IA,- in terms, cannot rightly be interpreted / construed to cover within its ambit any transaction in which the transfer is of an asset, being a ‘flat’ (or ‘apartment’).
The reported Bombay HC Judgment, and the view of the itat in Atul Puranik’case,- cited and followed, having been held to be conclusive in the matter,- it will be appreciated, might help to amply support and lend sufficient credence to the above referred view.
For a detailed discussion, if so interested, suggest to look up the following published material:
(2013) KLJ PART -7, pg. 126
(2013) KLJ PART -8, pg. 153
RIDER
for Adds-on, look up, –
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sec-50c-landmark-judgment-swaminathan-venkataraman
courtesy