TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 rules in favor of Revenue in property ownership dispute for Assessment Year 2009-10</h1> The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal challenging the Ld. CIT(A)'s order for Assessment Year 2009-10. It emphasized the importance of ownership in ... Computation of capital gains - transfer of property when sold in 2004 but registered only during the year 2008 - application of provision of 50C - Held that:- CIT(A) has observed that the assessee’s name in the deed of Transfer of lease hold rights was mentioned only because the original allotment was in his name, hence, the assessee did not have ownership of the said property during the year under consideration and therefore, there is no question of transaction of sale of the said property during the year under consideration and capital gains is not accrued. However, the Capital Gains should be taken into account only after deducted the price of the plot from the value of the property i.e. ₹ 99,20,000 (-) Minus ₹ 16,75,000/- i.e. the cost of the plot (to be paid to the Noida Authority) = ₹ 82,45,000/-. Accordingly, we set aside the issue in dispute to the file of the AO with the direction to compute the capital gains on the difference of the Stamp duty amount and price of the impugned property after applying the relevant provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is reversed. - Appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes. Issues:1. Validity of the Ld. CIT(A)'s order2. Application of section 50 C regarding lease hold rights3. Timing of property transfer and lack of purchase details4. Ownership requirement for property saleIssue 1: Validity of the Ld. CIT(A)'s orderThe appeal by the Revenue challenged the Ld. CIT(A)'s order for Assessment Year 2009-10, arguing that it was legally flawed and not aligned with the case facts. The Ld. CIT(A) had deleted an addition made by the AO concerning Long Term Capital Gain on the sale of a property, leading to the appeal.Issue 2: Application of section 50 C regarding lease hold rightsThe Ld. CIT(A) had directed the AO to apply section 50 C, contending that lease hold rights were not covered under this section. However, the Revenue argued that this direction was erroneous, emphasizing the need for the property owner to sell it and the absence of ownership before such a sale.Issue 3: Timing of property transfer and lack of purchase detailsThe AO added the entire sale price of the property to the assessee's income, as the transfer was deemed to have occurred in the relevant year, and no purchase details were provided. In contrast, the Ld. CIT(A) highlighted that the property transfer actually took place earlier, and the absence of ownership during the relevant year precluded any capital gains.Issue 4: Ownership requirement for property saleThe Tribunal analyzed the case, noting that the assessee did not have ownership during the relevant year, as the property had been transferred earlier. The Tribunal directed the AO to recalculate the capital gains by deducting the cost of the plot from the property value, as the ownership status impacted the tax implications, ultimately overturning the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of ownership in property transactions and the accurate computation of capital gains based on ownership status and property costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
