Case Law Details
Case Name : J. S. & M. F. Builders Vs A. K. Chauhan and others (Bombay High Court)
Appeal Number : Writ Petition No.788 of 2001
Date of Judgement/Order : 12/06/2020
Related Assessment Year :
Courts :
All High Courts Bombay High Court
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored
J. S. & M. F. Builders Vs A. K. Chauhan and others (Bombay High Court)
The issue under consideration is whether the AO is correct in considering that the capital gain will arise in the year when the land is transferred to the co-operative society formed by the flat pu Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Sponsored
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
Author Bio
Own TAKE:
“23.1. Mr. Pardiwalla further submits that petitioner had fully complied with the requirement of Section 45(2) of the Act and the capital gains arising on the conversion of the land into stock-in-trade was offered and RIGHTLY ASSESSED TO TAX IN THE YEARS IN WHICH THE FLATS WERE SOLD ON THE FOOTING THAT ON THE SALE OF THE FLAT THERE WAS ALSO A PROPORTIONATE SALE OF THE LAND. This methodology adopted by the petitioner is in accordance with law…..”
In making such a submission, the implications of the spl. State law (MOFA) does not seem to have been kept in sharp focus; and, not having been duly countered / addressed by the DR, has not been gone into by the HC.
To know what are the referred Spl. Law implications, anyone may prudently go through, among others, the Article published @ https://taxguru.in/income-tax/section-194-ia-writeup.html
Incidentally, as anyone concerned may be, or is expected to be aware, also certain recent developments are of direct relevance; which need to be taken a special note of. For one such development, that strikingly stands out as a sore thumb, recommend to look through the write-up of a lawyer on sec 54F (as amended in 2014), displayed on this website itself, fancifully titled – Decoding ‘One House’, ‘One Unit’ Concept in Section 54F . Also read the comment and rejoinder there under.
All such and other related issues, having a common week thread, might have to perforce be taken on before the SC in a writ by the Revenue, for adjudication after consolidation of all cases wherever pending, in one go, in order to effectively cry a halt and accomplish the intended purpose of putting an end to all such frivolously ‘stimulated litigation’ (in its bizarre sense), mostly founded on convoluted and in-box thinking, without a proper in-depth study and incisive application of mind.
And, for PRECEDENT, may look through, insight-fully,the Article (CRITIQUE) published on this website itself @ LAW and (‘vs’?) CASE LAW On “FLATS” – A Critical Study, discussing the viewpoints/ opinion of the SC in Podar Cement case , standing out as a landmark judgment , on its own merits, founded on common sense based pragmatism . That is a case which should greatly support and be of immense help to the Revenue. If so done, in one’s view / firm conviction, there are good prospects of success.
OVER to the REVENUE for due consideration, in all seriousness.
FN : For comment (s) posted in the same vein as above, and to the same effect, attention is invited to the Report of the Judgment of the Karnataka HC @ https://taxguru.in/income-tax/multiple-independent-residential-units-building-treated-one-residential-unit-section-54f-exemption.html