Tribunal Rules No Capital Gains Tax on Additional FSI Transfer Due to Lack of Acquisition Cost, Citing Legal Precedents.

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee by accepting the argument that no capital gains tax should be levied on the transfer of additional Floor Space Index (FSI) due to the absence of a cost of acquisition. The decision was based on the interpretation of the "no cost no capital gains theory," supported by legal precedents, and confirmed that a capital asset without any ascertainable cost of acquisition does not attract capital gains tax under Section 45. The Tribunal found no specific asset under Section 55(2) to include the right to additional FSI.

---

---

Issues:
Interpretation of the "no cost no capital gains theory" in relation to the sale of Transfer Development Right (TDR) under the Development Control Regulations Act, 1991.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of the "no cost no capital gains theory"

The appeal revolved around the application of the "no cost no capital gains theory" to the sale of Transfer Development Right (TDR) by a cooperative housing society. The Assessing Officer computed capital gains on the sale of additional Floor Space Index (FSI) by the assessee, despite the contention that the right transferred did not have any cost of acquisition. The Tribunal examined the concept of TDR introduced in Mumbai under the Development Control Rules, 1991, where the FSI of a plot of land is separated and allowed to be transferred. The Tribunal noted that the assessee became entitled to additional FSI due to its land holding and transferred this entitlement for a consideration. The Tribunal emphasized that for capital gains computation, there must be a sale consideration resulting from the transfer of a capital asset, along with a cost of acquisition. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty, the Tribunal clarified that a transfer of a capital asset without any cost of acquisition does not attract capital gains tax under Section 45. The Tribunal differentiated between assets with a cost of acquisition at nil under Section 55(2) and assets with no ascertainable cost of acquisition. In this case, as the right to additional FSI had no cost of acquisition, the Tribunal held that no capital gains could be charged on its transfer.

Issue 2: Application of Legal Precedents

The Tribunal considered legal precedents, including the decision in Jethalal D. Mehta v. Dy. CIT, to support the assessee's contention that no capital gains should be charged on the transfer of additional FSI due to the absence of a cost of acquisition. The Tribunal noted that the Departmental Representative failed to identify any specific asset under Section 55(2) that would include the right to additional FSI. Relying on the precedent and finding no contrary decision or modification of the cited order, the Tribunal accepted the ground of appeal raised by the assessee. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that when a capital asset has no cost of acquisition and does not fall within the categories specified in Section 55(2), no capital gains tax should be levied on its transfer.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee by accepting the ground related to the non-taxability of capital gains on the transfer of additional FSI. The decision was grounded in the interpretation of the "no cost no capital gains theory" in light of the specific circumstances of the case and relevant legal provisions, emphasizing the importance of a cost of acquisition in determining capital gains tax liability on the transfer of capital assets.

---