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 › ITO vs. Prem Rattan Gupta (ITAT Mumbai)

ITO vs. Prem Rattan Gupta (ITAT Mumbai)

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 23, 2013 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (prem_rattan_gupta_50C_TDR_FSI.pdf)


S. 50C does not apply to transfer of FSI & TDR

The assessee owned a plot of land admeasuring 2244.18 sq. mts of which 2110 sq. mts was acquired by the Municipality for development purposes. The assessee was entitled to receive TDR/ FSI in lieu of the land acquired. The assessee sold the development rights to the said property for Rs. 20 lakhs and computed capital gains on that basis. However, for purposes of stamp duty, the property was valued at Rs. 1.19 crores. The AO held that the value of the property as adopted by the stamp duty authorities had to be taken as the consideration u/s 50C for purposes of capital gains. This was reversed by the CIT(A). On appeal by the department to the Tribunal, HELD:

S. 50C applies only to the transfer of “land or building” and not to the transfer of all “immovable property“. Accordingly, though FSI and TDR is “immovable property” as held in Chedda Housing Development vs. Babijan Shekh Farid 2007 (3) MLJ 402 (Bom), it is not “land or building” and so cannot be the subject matter of s. 50C. The property acquired for development (in lieu of which the FSI/TDR was granted) also cannot be considered even though the property continues to stand in the assessee’s name in the property records. The property should be valued by the DVO net of the land transferred to the Developer by the assessee after considering the acquisition made by the Govt & the Municipal Corporation and also excluding the value of TDR or additional FSI included in the consideration shown in the Development Agreement

For more see Treatise on the law of Real Estate Development Contracts

Related Posts:

  • Prem Jain vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) In cases where the purchase has been made solely and exclusively with the intention to resell at a profit and the purchaser has no intention of holding the property for himself or otherwise enjoying or using it, the presence of such an intention is a relevant factory and unless it…
  • Kunal R. Gupta vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Though conflict of legal claims in present or in future is generally a condition for the validity of a family arrangement, it is not necessarily so. Even bona fide disputes, present or possible, which may not involve legal claims will suffice. Members of a joint Hindu family may, to maintain…
  • Prabhat Gupta vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Anyhow, after receipt of the information from DGIT(Inv.) Mumbai, the Assessing Officer issued the notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to all the parties but the said noticed were not served upon the said parties. The Assessing Officer also deputed the tax inspector to verify the genuineness of the claim…
  • PCIT vs. Sushil Gupta Legal Representative of Late Mahabir Prasad Gupta (Bombay High Court) The Tribunal without adverting to the relevant facts and materials on record granted benefit to the assessee on the lines followed by this Court in the case of Pannalal (supra). The Tribunal without discussing the relevant materials compared the case of the assessee with the facts arising in the judgment…
  • Pr CIT vs. Prem Pal Gandhi (P&H High Court) The assessee purchased shares of a company during the assessment year 2006-2007 at Rs 11/- and sold the same in the assessment year 2008-2009 at Rs 400/- per share. The Assessing Officer added the appreciation to the assessees’ income on the suspicion that these were fictitious transactions and that the…
  • Subodh Gupta (HUF) vs. Pr CIT (ITAT Delhi) As per explanation (d) in the definition of “property", several types of assets are listed including shares and securities. It is not denied that assessee is an HUF, during the year it has received from mother of the Kaka of the assessee HUF a gift of 75,000 shares of a…

Related Judgements

  1. DCIT vs. Citizen Hotels (ITAT Mumbai) 

    As the assessee had earned tax-free dividend income, s.14A was applicable. The question of determination of the disallowable amount has to be worked out by the AO as per Rule 8D as held the Special Bench judgement in ITO Vs. Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 119 TTJ (Mum)…
  2. Shree Capital Services vs. ACIT (ITAT Kolkota Special Bench) 

    A ‘derivative’ is a security representing the value of the underlying stocks and shares and must be given the same treatment as that given to the stocks and shares. Also, s. 43 (5) uses the term “commodity” in a wide sense and covers ‘derivatives’. Further, the fact that s….
  3. BBC Worldwide vs. DDIT (ITAT Delhi) 

    In Circular No. 23 of 1969 dated 23rd July 1969 the CBDT has held that if a non resident’s sales to Indian customers are secured through the services of an agent in India, the assessment in India of the income arising out of the transaction will be limited to…
  4. Bapushaeb Nanasaheb Dhumal vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    Failure to deduct or deposit tax as per s. 194C or Chapter-XVII makes the assessee liable to the consequences provided under the said Chapter-XVII. However, s. 40(a)(ia) is in addition to Chapter XVII. S. 40(a)(ia)(A) provides that if tax is deducted during the last month of the previous…
  5. Central Bank of India vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    Article 26(3) of the India-USA DTAA protects the interest of non residents vis-a-vis residents. Article 26(3) provides that payment made to a non-resident will be deductible under the same conditions as if the payment were made to a resident. The exceptions provided in Article 26(3) are not applicable on…

Leave a Reply

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

*