2020 (8) TMI 670 - AT - Income Tax

Appellate Tribunal Grants Relief on Land Value Dispute

Bangalore Pharmaceutical & Research Laboratory Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Dy. Commissioner of Incometax, Circle-1 (1) (2), Bengaluru. And (Vice-Versa)

The appellate tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes and dismissed the revenue's appeal regarding the value of land for capital ... Deduction u/s 54G - new unit set up at Nelamangala - CIT(A) held that, for purposes of capital gain computation, value of land as on the rate of JDA that is 05/10/2005 is to be taken and not the cost of construction of super built a period to be received - HELD THAT:- In interest of natural Justice, we direct Ld.CIT(A) to decide these issue on merits having regard to evidences filed by assessee.Needless to say that, proper opportunity of being heard should be granted to assessee in accordance with law. Value of land to be considered for purposes of computing capital gains - As submitted that there is substantial difference between cost of construction adopted for purpose of computing capital gains on sale of capital assets and expenditure booked by the developer in the course of construction activity - HELD THAT:- As perused decision of CIT vs. Ved Prakash Rakhra [2012 (10) TMI 286 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and note that, it squarely applies to present facts. Based upon the above observations by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, we do not find any merits in the issue raised by revenue. Issues:1. Appeal filed by assessee and revenue against order passed by Ld. CIT (A) for assessment year 2006-07.2. Various grounds of appeal including computation of indexed cost of sale, LTCG income, interest u/s 234B, and deduction u/s 54G.3. Discrepancy in capital gain computation due to joint development agreement.4. Assessee's request for further evidence to be allowed during appeal.5. Dispute over the value of land for capital gain computation.Issue 1: Appeal GroundsThe appellate tribunal considered cross-appeals filed by the assessee and revenue against the CIT (A)'s order for the assessment year 2006-07. The grounds of appeal included challenges to the computation of indexed cost of sale, LTCG income, interest under section 234B, and a request for deduction under section 54G. The assessee also sought permission to present additional evidence during the appeal.Issue 2: Capital Gain ComputationThe case involved a joint development agreement where the assessee handed over land for development in exchange for constructed commercial space. The Assessing Officer (AO) determined that capital gains arose when the agreement was executed. The AO considered the cost of construction as the sale consideration for computing capital gains. The assessee disagreed, citing relevant case law and claiming that the value of land at the time of the agreement should be considered.Issue 3: Additional GroundsBefore the CIT (A), the assessee raised additional grounds related to the deduction under section 54G for a new unit set up. The CIT (A) held that the value of land at the time of the joint development agreement should be used for capital gain computation, relying on tribunal and high court decisions. Both the assessee and revenue appealed this decision.Issue 4: Further EvidenceThe assessee requested that certain issues raised before the CIT (A) be reconsidered, as they were not decided. The tribunal directed the CIT (A) to adjudicate on these issues based on the evidence provided by the assessee, ensuring a fair hearing.Issue 5: Value of LandThe revenue contested the value of land considered for capital gain computation. The tribunal examined relevant case law, particularly the decision of the Karnataka High Court, and dismissed the revenue's appeal based on the applicability of the precedent.In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes and dismissed the revenue's appeal regarding the value of land for capital gain computation. The order was pronounced on 21st August 2020.