Case Law Details
ACIT Vs Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)
Revenue is aggrieved with the observation of the CIT(A) that the provisions of Sec. 50C of the Act would not stand triggered in respect of the transaction of transfer of reversionary rights of the property in question by the assessee to M/s Yash & Yashika Mercantile (P) Ltd. Briefly stated, the facts relevant for adjudication of the present issue are that the property in question was originally leased way back on 06.05.1919 by Rustomji Bymmjee Jeejeebhoy & Others i.e the lessors to Cursetjee Dinshaw Bolton i.e the lessee. Thereafter, the lessee i.e Cursetjee Dinshaw Bolton constructed a building, viz. “New Bolton House” on the leasehold land. Subsequently, one person, viz. Sethna seized and possessed the property in question and the assessee company being vested with the reversionary rights as regards the said property therein recovered rent from Sethna. On 08.05.1986, Sethna‟s solicitor, viz. M/s Vachha & Co. sought the consent of the assessee company for assignment of the leasehold rights by their clients, viz. Sethna in favour of one Siraj alias Shiraj Mohamadali Calcuttawala. Backed by the aforesaid facts, the assessee company terminated the lease on the ground of breach of the terms and conditions of the lease and agreed to sell its reversionary rights in the aforesaid property for a lump sum consideration of Rs. 6,00,016/- to Yash & Yashika Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, it has been the claim of the assessee company that what was transferred by it vide agreement dated 08.07.2013 to Yash & Yashika Mercantile Pvt. Ltd were the reversionary rights qua the property in question viz. New Bolton House. After deliberating on the claim of the assessee that the deeming provisions of Sec. 50C would not stand triggered in a case where an assessee had only transferred its reversionary rights in a property, we find, that the CIT(A) had found favour with the same.
As is discernible from the order of the CIT(A), we find, that he had after drawing support from the orders of the coordinate benches of the Tribunal observed, that a transaction of transfer of reversionary rights in a property by an assessee would not attract the provision of Sec. 50C of the Act. We, finding ourselves in agreement with the view taken by the coordinate benches of the Tribunal, viz. the order of the ITAT, Kolkata in the case of DCIT Vs. Tejinder Singh, ITA No. 1459/Kol/2011, dated 29.02.2012 and that of ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of ITO, Ward-10(2), Hyderabad Vs. Ms. D. Anitha, ITA No. 394/Hyd/2014, dated 24.12.2014, thus, find no infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(A) and uphold the same.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
The present appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-8, Mumbai dated, 29.11.2019 which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ”Act”), dated 28.03.2014 for A.Y. 2011-12. The revenue has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds before us:
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
