2022 (12) TMI 1358 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT upholds CIT(A)'s decisions on Section 50C, clarifies valuation methods in capital gain calculations (A)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-11 (3) (2), Mumbai Versus M/s. Zoetis India Ltd. (Earlier known as M/s. Pfizer Animal Health India Ltd.) Pfizer Centre, Mumbai

The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on both issues. The judgment clarified the inapplicability of Section 50C to ... Addition made u/s.50C in respect of transfer of leasehold rights in land and building - capital gain adopting of stamp duty value in terms of Section 50C - HELD THAT:- The asset that has been transferred by the assessee is leasehold right in land and building. In the case of CIT vs. Greenfield Hotels and Estates Pvt. Ltd. [2016 (12) TMI 353 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that the provisions of Section 50C will not be applicable while computing capital gains on transfer of leasehold rights in land and building. In the instant case, the capital gain has arisen only on account of adopting of stamp duty value in terms of Section 50C - Since, Section 50C of the Act is held to be not applicable on transfer of leasehold rights, the decision renderd by ld. CIT(A) gets support from the binding decision rendered by Hon‟ble Bombay High Court. Accordingly, the AO was not justified in invoking provisions of Section 50C for determining capital gain arising on transfer of lease hold rights in land and building. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of Ld CIT(A) rendered on this issue. Determination of capital gain - Addition to long term capital gain by adopting sale consideration under NAV method as against DCF method adopted by the assessee - HELD THAT:- n the present case, the AO has not disputed the amount of sale consideration received by the appellant. There is no allegation whatsoever that the appellant had received or had accrued more than the stated amount of sales consideration. Further, the Reserve Bank of India has approved the said transaction after taking into consideration the relevant transactional documents, including the impugned valuation report dated 22/07/2009 issued by Deloitte Huskins & Sells. Still, the L AO has substituted the actual consideration with notional consideration calculated purportedly on the basis of the NAV method, which is in violation of the provisions of section 48 of the Act and therefore, the action of the Ld. AO is bad in law. Also it is a well settled position in law that the AO cannot subject to tax any notional income unless there are specific provisions in relation thereto, allowing the substitution of the actual consideration with notional consideration. The addition made by the AO is liable to be deleted on the above said legal contentions. When there is no provision in the Act to substitute Full value of consideration for computing Capital gain during the relevant point of time, then there is no scope for the AO to modify the full value of consideration without bringing any material on record which would compel such modification. Hence, we are of the opinion that the view taken by Ld CIT(A) on this issue does not require interference for the reasons mentioned by him and also on the legal propositions discussed above. Accordingly, we uphold the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue also. Appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Issues:1. Addition made u/s.50C of the Act in respect of transfer of leasehold rights in land and building.2. Addition to long term capital gain by adopting sale consideration under NAV method as against DCF method adopted by the assessee.Issue 1: Addition u/s.50C of the Act:The Revenue challenged the order granting relief to the assessee on the addition made under Section 50C of the Act for the transfer of leasehold rights. The AO assessed a capital gain of Rs.27.36 lakhs based on stamp duty value, invoking Section 50C. However, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court ruled that Section 50C does not apply to the transfer of leasehold rights. As the gain arose solely due to Section 50C, the AO's invocation was unjustified. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing the High Court's binding precedent.Issue 2: Capital Gain Calculation Method:The second issue involved the determination of capital gain by substituting the sale consideration using the NAV method instead of the DCF method chosen by the assessee. The AO contended that the DCF method used by the assessee was flawed and opted for the NAV method, resulting in a higher valuation. However, the CIT(A) found the transaction to be legitimate and commercial, rejecting the AO's valuation change without substantial evidence. The ITAT concurred, stating that without legal provisions permitting substitution of consideration, the AO's modification lacked basis. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the absence of legal grounds for altering the valuation method.In conclusion, the ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on both issues. The judgment clarified the inapplicability of Section 50C to leasehold rights transfers and emphasized the necessity of legal provisions for altering valuation methods in capital gain calculations.