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 › Kishori Sharad Gaitonde vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

Kishori Sharad Gaitonde vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 27, 2010 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (kishori_gaitonde_50C_tenancy_rights.pdf)

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:

  • 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. Automated Securities vs. ITO (ITAT Pune) (1.8 MB) 

    In order to attract the non-discrimination clause in Article 26, mere differential treatment is not enough. The assessee has to show that not only has it been subjected to differential treatment vis-à-vis others but also that the ground for this differentiation in treatment is unreasonable, arbitrary or irrelevant and…
  4. 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…
  5. 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 ›
0 comments on “Kishori Sharad Gaitonde vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)”
1 Pings/Trackbacks for "Kishori Sharad Gaitonde vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)"
  1. archives » Bhatia Nagar Premises Co-op Soc vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)» Latest unreported judgements says:
    August 19, 2010 at 5:48 pm

    […] For the law on interpretation of s. 50C see Kishori Sharad Gaitonde vs. ITO (ITAT […]