| COURT: |
|
| CORAM: |
|
| SECTION(S): |
|
| GENRE: |
|
| CATCH WORDS: |
|
| COUNSEL: |
|
| DATE: |
(Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: |
May 27, 2010 (Date of publication) |
| AY: |
|
| FILE: |
|
| CITATION: |
|
|
|
S. 50C does not apply to “rights” in land & building like tenancy rights
The assessee, a tenant in a flat, sold tenancy rights for Rs. 30 lakhs and offered long-term capital gains on the basis that the said sum was the consideration. The AO took the view that as the market value adopted the Sub-Registrar was Rs. 33,11,200, the said market value had to be adopted as the consideration u/s 50C. This was confirmed by the CIT (A). On appeal by the assessee, HELD allowing the appeal:
(i) S. 50C is a deeming provision and incorporates a legal fiction that if the consideration received on transfer of land or building is less than the stamp duty value, the said stamp duty value shall be deemed to be the full value of consideration for purposes of computing capital gains;
(ii) It is trite law that a legal fiction cannot extend beyond the purpose for which it is enacted. As long as there is no ambiguity in the statutory language, resort to any interpretative process to unfold the legislative intent is impermissible. The statute has to be interpreted on the basis of the language used. No words can be added and only the language used can be considered so to ascertain the proper meaning and intent of the legislation. (Law on interpretation discussed in detail);
(iii) S. 50C does not apply to all capital assets but only to “land or building”. A tenancy right is not “land or building” (It is “rights” in building). Consequently, s. 50C has no application and the capital gains have to be computed on the basis of the actual consideration and not the stamp duty value.
Note: In
Navneet Thakkar 110 ITD 525 (Jodh),
Carlton Hotel 122 TTJ (Luck) 515 and
Vijay Lakshmi Dhadia 20 DTR (Jp) 365 it was held that s. 50C did not apply
if the transfer document was not stamped. In
Inderlok Hotels 318 ITR (AT) 234 (Mum),
Thiruvengadam Investments 34 DTR 81 and
Excellent Land Developers 1 ITR (Trib) 563 (Delhi) it was held that s. 50C did not apply to land & building held as
stock-in-trade. For more, see the
Digest of Important Case Laws. See Also:
Treatise on the law of Real Estate Development Contracts
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…
[…] For the law on interpretation of s. 50C see Kishori Sharad Gaitonde vs. ITO (ITAT […]