Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : ACIT Vs. Ishverlal Manmohandas Kanakia (ITAT Mumbai)
Appeal Number : ITA No. : 3053/Mum/2010
Date of Judgement/Order : 08/02/2012
Related Assessment Year : 2006- 07
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

ACIT Vs. Ishverlal Manmohandas Kanakia (ITAT Mumbai)– The issue raised by the Assessee is that while computing capital gain cost of improvement should also be capable of being determined. The dispute in the case decided by Tribunal in the case of Jethalal D.Mehtha (supra) and Maheshwar Prasad-2 CHS Ltd. (supra) was while computing capital gain cost of acquisition of the capital asset was not capable of determination.

As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C.Srinivasa Shetty (supra) both cost of acquisition and cost of improvement should be capable being ascertained and only then the machinery provisions of Sec.48 can be applied. Therefore if cost of improvement cannot be ascertained the principle laid down in the case of B.C.Srinivasa Shetty would equally apply. The decisions rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Jethalal D.Mehtha (supra) and Maheshwar Prasad-2 CHS Ltd. (supra) clearly lay down that right as owner of a receiving plot to load additional FSI in terms of Regulation 14 of the Regulations is a right for which there is no cost of acquisition. If that be so, then the computation of capital gain in the case of the Assessee is not possible and therefore the receipt by the Assessee is a capital receipt which cannot be brought to tax as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C.Srinivasa Shetty (supra). In that view of the matter we are of the view that the receipts on assignment of FSI including originating from the plot of land and/or married to it and right to load consume and use FSI credit by way of TDR which was the subject matter of transfer by the Assessee was a capital asset in respect of which the cost of improvement could not be ascertained and therefore the receipts of consideration for transfer of the said rights cannot be brought to tax as the said receipts will be capital receipts and not capital gain.

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI

ITA No. : 3053/Mum/2010 -Assessment Years : 2006- 07

ITA No. : 2650/Mum/2010 Assessment Years : 2006- 07

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

0 Comments

  1. Suresh Kumar says:

    The issue raised The judgement of Tribunal in case of Jethalal D.Mehtha has been admiited by Bombay High court . the issue is pending before Bombay High court

Leave a Comment

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

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031