TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal upholds assessee's stance on capital gains computation in Joint Development Agreement. Legal precedents key.</h1> <h3>Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1 (1), Mangalore Versus Smt. Sarojini M Kushe</h3> Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1 (1), Mangalore Versus Smt. Sarojini M Kushe - TMI Issues:1. Validity of the return filed by the assessee.2. Computation of capital gains based on Joint Development Agreement (JDA) terms.3. Consideration for capital gains calculation - guidance value of property or cost of construction.4. Applicability of the judgment in the case of ACIT Vs. Shankar Vittal Motor Co. Ltd.5. Compliance with the decision of the co-ordinate bench and the jurisdictional High Court.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: The validity of the return filed by the assessee was challenged by the Revenue, contending that the non-est return filed by the assessee was considered valid by the CIT (Appeals) based on the premise that the return was filed at the assessment stage. The Revenue argued that this was contrary to the facts of the case.Issue 2: The main issue revolved around the computation of capital gains based on the terms of the Joint Development Agreement (JDA) entered into by the assessee with a developer. The JDA entitled the assessee to a percentage of the total saleable super built-up area in the residential building to be constructed by the developer. The Revenue disputed the method used by the Assessing Officer to compute capital gains, which resulted in a significant tax liability for the assessee.Issue 3: The disagreement between the Revenue and the assessee centered on the consideration to be used for calculating capital gains. The Revenue argued that the cost of construction should be considered as the sale consideration, while the CIT (Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to compute capital gains using the fair market value based on government records. This raised the question of whether the guidance value of the property or the cost of construction should be the basis for determining the capital gains.Issue 4: The judgment in the case of ACIT Vs. Shankar Vittal Motor Co. Ltd. was cited by the assessee to support their position. The co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal had considered a similar issue and ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the importance of the guidance value of the land in computing capital gains. The decision of the co-ordinate bench was based on the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court, highlighting the relevance of precedent in such cases.Issue 5: The final decision of the Tribunal was influenced by the judgment of the co-ordinate bench and the jurisdictional High Court, which supported the position taken by the assessee regarding the computation of capital gains. By following the precedent set by the higher authorities, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, indicating compliance with established legal principles and interpretations.In conclusion, the judgment addressed various issues related to the computation of capital gains based on a Joint Development Agreement, highlighting the importance of legal precedents and the interpretation of relevant laws in reaching a decision.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
