2018 (5) TMI 713 - HC - Income Tax

High Court Rules Section 50C Inapplicable to Leasehold Transfers, Emphasizes Legal Strategy

The High Court interpreted Section 50C of the Act, ruling that it does not apply to the transfer of leasehold rights in land. The Tribunal's reliance on ... Admit on the following substantial question of law :- (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of Section 50C of the Act does not come into operation where leasehold rights in land are transferred? As no appeal had been filed by the Revenue for the order of the Tribunal in the case of Atul Puranik (2011 (5) TMI 576 - ITAT, Mumbai) which had held that section 50C of the Act will not apply to transfer of leasehold rights in land and buildings. However, at the time when both aforesaid decisions in Greenfield Hotels and Estates (2016 (12) TMI 353 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) and Heatex Products Pvt. Ltd. (2016 (7) TMI 1393 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) were not entertained by this Court, the decision of this Court in Pradeep Steel Re-Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. (2011 (7) TMI 1101 - ITAT MUMBAI) admitting the Appeal on this very question was not brought to our notice. Issues:1. Interpretation of Section 50C of the Act regarding transfer of leasehold rights in land.2. Reliance on previous decisions by the Tribunal and the High Court.3. Appeal withdrawal due to low tax effect.Analysis:1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of Section 50C of the Act concerning the transfer of leasehold rights in land. The Tribunal had allowed the respondent assessee's appeal based on its decision in previous cases, emphasizing that Section 50C applies only to the transfer of a capital asset being land or building, not leasehold rights in land. The High Court had previously declined to entertain the Revenue's appeal on the same issue, as it seemed the Revenue had accepted the Tribunal's decision in a similar case, as evidenced by the lack of an appeal filing.2. The Tribunal's reliance on its own decision in Atul G. Puranik vs. ITO and another case to support the respondent assessee's position is a critical aspect of this judgment. The High Court had also referred to its decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Heatex Products Pvt. Ltd., where the Revenue's appeal was not entertained due to the apparent acceptance of the Tribunal's decision in Atul G. Puranik. Furthermore, the withdrawal of the Revenue's appeal in another case due to low tax effect was highlighted during the proceedings.3. Another significant point raised during the hearing was the withdrawal of the Revenue's appeal in a specific case due to the low tax effect. This withdrawal was mentioned by the learned Counsel for the Revenue, indicating a practical consideration that led to the appeal being withdrawn. Such actions have implications for the overall legal strategy and approach in tax matters, as demonstrated by the circumstances of this case.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the High Court concerning the interpretation of Section 50C of the Act, the reliance on previous decisions, and the practical implications of appeal withdrawal based on tax effect considerations.