Atul G. Puranik vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Section 50C applies only to a capital asst, being land or building or both, it cannot be made applicable to lease rights in a land. As the assessee transferred lease right for sixty years in the Plot and not land itself, the provisions of sec.50C cannot be invoked. A distinction has been drawn between ‘land or building’ on one hand and ‘or any rights in land or building’ on the other. Considering the fact that we are dealing with special provision for full value of consideration in certain cases u/s.50C, which is a deeming provision, the fiction created in this section cannot be extended to any asset other than those specifically provided therein.
ITAT Mumbai in the case of Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v. DCIT held that service tax collected from customers on behalf of the Government cannot be included in the total receipts while determining its presumptive income under section 44B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Tivoli Investment and Trading Co vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)- the municipal value or standard rent is not binding on the AO but is a guiding factor for determining the reasonable rent expected to be fetched by the property. If the AO finds that the actual rent received is less than the fair market rent because of the abnormally high interest-free security deposit, he can undertake necessary exercise in that behalf. However, the notional interest on interest free security cannot be taken as determinative factor to arrive at fair rent.
ITO vs. Hemandas J. Pariyani The issue is whether the amount received by the society and its member on account of transferable development rights is taxable under capital gains. The issue in dispute is covered by the decision of the ITAT in the case of Jethalal v DCIT wherein it was held that transferable development rights granted by the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991, qualifying for equivalent floor space index having no cost of acquisition, sale thereof does not give rise to taxable capital gains. Since the facts of the case under consideration is identical to that of the decision of the ITAT in the said case, the CIT(A) was justified in directing the AO not to charge capital gains tax on the compensation received by the assessee even on a protective basis. Amount received by the society and its member on account of transferable development rights is not taxable under capital gains.
Recently ITAT Mumbai held that in the case of Chiranjeev Lal Khanna v. ITO held that considering the facts of the case and clauses in the agreement, the taxpayer has transferred land and building to the developer would be chargeable to tax as capital gains. Accordingly, Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 196 1(the Act) would be applicable.
The taxpayer was engaged in share trading. During the assessment year 2004-05, the taxpayer had set off the indexed long term capital loss against non-indexed long term capital gains. The Assessing Officer did not allow the set off of indexed long term capital loss against non-indexed long term capital gains. Vipul A. Shah v. ACIT (ITA No 3190/Mum/2010) Mumbai ITAT dated 8 April 2011
ITAT Mumbai in the case of Manali Investments v. ACIT held that the short term capital gains arising from the transfer of depreciable assets held for more than 36 months under Section 50(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) can be set-off against the brought forward long term capital losses under Section 74 of the Act.
DHL Express (India) Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) The assessee’s argument that comparables with a turnover less than 20% of the assessee’s turnover should be considered is not acceptable because it is a universal fact that there are lot of differences between large businesses and small businesses operating in the same field.
Shantilal M. Jain vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)-Though it is the case of the revenue that due to volume, magnitude, frequency, continuity, regularity, the ratio between purchase and sale clearly indicate that income on account of purchase and sale of shares should be treated as income from business and not as income from STCG, the AO has, from AY 2003-04 to 2008-09 (except for the impugned year 2006-07), consistently accepted the income as being STCG. In these circumstances, the Rule of consistency as propounded by the Bombay High Court in Gopal Purohit 228 CTR 582 (Bom) is squarely applicable and the income has to be treated as STCG.
Recently ITAT Mumbai in the case of ITO vs. United Marine Academy (Mumbai ITAT) held that Assessing Officer thus was right in applying the provision of section 50C to the transfer of depreciable capital assets covered by section 50 and in computing the capital gain arising from the said transfer by adopting the stamp duty valuation.
