Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.41 seconds)
Documents citing Puranik Builders P.Ltd, Thane vs Department Of Income Tax on 29 June, 2016

Bhavnagar Jilla Sahkari Kharid Vechan ... vs Acit, Circle-2, , Bhavnagar on 19 November, 2019

G. Puranik v. ITO, 12(1)(1) and that of the Calcutta Bench in Dy. CIT v. Tejender ITA No. 1119/Ahd/2018 Bhavnagar Jilla Sahkari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd Vs. ACIT AY : 2013-14 5 Singh 19 Taxman.Com 4 In all these, the various Benches of the Tribunal appear to have strictly construed the letter of Section 50C to say that the conveyance has to be complete in respect of all entitlements to the property. In the present case, the Tribunal has upheld the valuation of the assessee. We notice that apart from the three Benches, decisions of which have been relied on, the Tribunal also considered the distinction made between Section 50C and 54D(1) which specifically provides that capital gains from, transfer by way of compulsory acquisition under any law of capital asset being land, building or any right in the land or building...................... ?. Section 50C, on the other hand, talks of, transfer by assessee of a capital asset being land or building or both. The contrast in language, given that Section 50C is a specific provision, which seeks to enact a presumption is significant. The valuation of the concerned State agency or the government that the cost of the land is, in the circumstances, higher, is determinative. We notice that in the present case, there has been no such valuation. That apart, the Tribunal adopted an approach which, with respect, appears to be correct, in that it took note of the proportionate transfer of leasehold rights for 54 years. If the Revenue's contentions were to be conceded, then in the given facts of case, if the leasehold rights for residual period of 3 or 4 years were to be valued at par with the cost of acquisition of the full tenure of the lease of 90 years, absurd and anomalous results would ensue."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 9 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(4), , Surat vs Sureshchandra Parekh ,, Surat on 9 February, 2017

G. Puranik v. ITO, 12(1)(1) and that of the Calcutta Bench in Dy. CIT v. Tejender Singh 19 Taxman.Com 4 In all these, the various Benches of the Tribunal appear to have strictly construed the letter of Section 50C to say that the conveyance has to be complete in respect of all entitlements to the property. In the present case, the Tribunal has upheld the valuation of the assessee. We notice that apart from the three Benches, decisions of which have been relied on, the Tribunal also considered the distinction made between Section 50C and 54D(1) which specifically provides that capital gains from, transfer by way of compulsory acquisition under any law of capital asset being land, building or any right in the land or building...................... ?. Section 50C, on the other hand, talks of, transfer by assessee of a capital asset being land or building or both. The contrast in language, given that Section 50C is a specific provision, which seeks to enact a presumption is significant. The valuation of the concerned State agency or the government that the cost of the land is, in the circumstances, higher, is determinative. We notice that in the present case, there has been no such valuation. That apart, the Tribunal adopted an approach which, with respect, appears to be correct, in that it took note of the proportionate transfer of leasehold rights for 54 years. If the Revenue's contentions were to be conceded, then in the given facts of case, if the leasehold rights for residual period of 3 or 4 years were to be valued at par with the cost of acquisition of the full tenure of the lease of 90 years, absurd and anomalous results would ensue."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1