TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 622
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sets." 2. That the CIT(A)/A.O failed to appreciate that no gain or loss is taxable on an asset forming block of assets unless the block ceases to exist. 3. That the CIT(A)/A.O has made an erroneous interpretation of Section 50(1), Section 50A of the IT Act read with Section 48 & 49 of the I.T Act. 4. That without prejudice if the profit on sale of one of the shops in the block of asset was to be treated as a capital assset then the long term capital loss of Rs. 415135/- should have been allowed to the assessee. 5. That by denying long term capital loss of Rs. 415135/- and taxing the profit on sale of one of the shops from block of assets, the A.O/CIT(A) have misapplied the provisions of law." 2. We have heard and considered t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... A.Y 2004-05. However, the claim of depreciation was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. In the first appeal depreciation was allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 12/2/2007. The said first appellate order was accepted by the Department in as much as, no second appeal was filed. The Ld. AR referred page No. 1 to 5 of the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee wherein copy of the said First Appellate Order dated 12/2/2007 has been made available. He submitted further that in the succeeding assessment year i.e 2005-06, in the original return filed on 28/10/2005, depreciation on the shops was claimed (Page Nos. 6 &7 of the paper book). However, in the revised return filed on 10/1/2006 depreciation was added back as was advised by its....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... depreciation on shop sold was added back both in the A. Ys 2005-06 and 2006-07. The Ld. AR contended that since Section 50 was not applicable, therefore, capital gain was computed on the basis of indexed cost. Based on indexed cost, the assessee incurred capital loss of Rs. 4,15,135/- (Page No. 20 of the paper book). The Ld. AR contended that both the additions are inter-linked and arise from the same transaction of sale of Shop No. 47. The said shop was sold for Rs. 45 lac. There is no dispute on the issue of sale consideration. He submitted that while making first addition of Rs. 1,97,008/-, it was not appreciated by the Assessing Officer that the taxability of in income is different from the accounting treatment. Since an asset (shop) a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and Infrastructure Ltd (2012) 20 Taxman. Com 770 (Delhi) on application of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that since in the present case block of assets continued to exceed even if the sale of one shop, therefore, the assessee had rightly submitted that it should have reduced the sale consideration from the block of assets instead of treating as a separate asset. He submitted that provisions of Section 50A are applicable only if Section the provisions u/s 50 are applicable. 8. Without prejudice the above submission, the Ld. AR submitted further that in case it is held that Section 50 was not applicable because the shop sold was not a business asset and depreciation was not being claimed/allowed, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dispute that the role of application of Section 50A will come in operation only when Section 50 is applicable. In other words, when provisions u/s 50 are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is no question of application of Section 50A on the issue. In the present case regarding the first addition of Rs. 1,97,008/-, the explanation of the assessee remained that the profit on sale of assets at Rs. 1,97,008/- represented the profit on sale of one of the shop situated at Centre Stage Mall. The assessee had acquired two shops in the financial year ending on 31/3/2004 for its own office use etc and therefore, depreciation was also claimed in the A.Y 2004-05. The depreciation was initially disallowed by the A.....