Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Shavo Norgren (P) Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Appeal Number : ITA No. 8101/Mum/2011
Date of Judgement/Order : 14/12/2012
Related Assessment Year : 2008-09
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Shavo Norgren (P) Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

ITAT Mumbai has directed AO to obtain the complete information and examine whether assessee has only leasehold right or complete rights over the property so that provisions of section 50C of the Income Tax Act are attracted.

Facts- Assessee had taken a plot of land on lease from Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) in the year 1967 for a lease of 95 years commencing from 1st January, 1967. Assessee had also paid premium to MIDC as per their rules prevalent at that time. In the previous year 2007-08 assessee entered into a MOU for transfer of part of the said land on 9th April 2007, received an advance of Rs.30 lacs and applied to MIDC for their consent. MIDC gave their consent on 25/1/2008 for two different plots sub divided from the original one and accordingly the transfer of the lease was affected by agreement dated 7th March, 2008. At the time of entering into MOU an advance of Rs.30 lacs was obtained by assessee and subsequently the two plots together with Building thereon were transferred for· a total sum of Rs.2,01,57,606. Assessee worked out capital gain of Rs.1,60,38,687 after deducting the value of building at Rs.14,30,220/- and the market value as on 1/4/1981 increased by indexation cost to Rs.26,88,699.

AO applied Sec. 50C of the Income tax Act and considered the market value of the plot of land at Rs.2,39,91,000 and considered this as long term capital gain for the purpose of computation of income. While taking this view the AO did not allow any cost as deduction and also did not exclude the value of building standing on the plots of land which was valued at Rs.14,30,220 and adjusted in the block of assets while computing depreciation under the Income tax.

Assessee’s contention was that since this plot of land was a leasehold right only, it was neither a land nor a building and therefore Section 50C would not be applicable to such transaction.

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.

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