Case Law Details
Shri Narendra Shantikumar Firodia Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune)
Phraseology in section 50C(1) of the Act only covers exclusively land or building or both and does not refer to any right in land or building. Thus, the expression land or building in its coverage is quite distinct from the expression any right in land or building. The legislature, in its wisdom, for the purpose of section 50C without referring to section 2(14) of the Act, has used the expression land or building or both in section 50C(1) of the Act itself, and without the expression of any right in therein i.e. land or building. Therefore, the precise use of one expression would exclude the other, a legal premise which is supported by the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “GVK Industries Ltd. Vs ITO” reported in 4 SCC 36.
In view of the aforesaid factual position and in law, we find that the present transaction of transfer of leasehold right in question does not warrant invoking of section 50C(1) of the Act, as the property in question is not of the explicitly covered by section 50C(1) of the Act, for the reason, we set aside the order of the Ld. FAA and direct the Ld. AO to delete the impugned addition.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
The present appeal is assailed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Pune [for short “CIT(A)”] dt. 20/03/2020 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [for short “the Act”] upholding the order of assessment dt. 28/12/2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act by Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar [for short “AO”] for the assessment year [for short “AY”] 2014-15.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
