TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 863
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... arise for consideration of this Court: 1. "Whether in law and on the facts of the instant case the Tribunal was justified in holding that income in the form of 18000 sq.feet did not accrue to the company ignoring the fact that the Development agreement dated 16.06.2006 was executed by the company with M/s Dipti Builders; 2. Whether in law and on the facts of the case was the Tribunal right in coming to the conclusion that no capital gains arose during the year, ignoring the fact that during the year development rights were transferred to Dipti Builders during the relevant financial year." 3. Whether in law and on the facts of the instant case, was the tribunal justified in holding the amount spent in acquiring a shareholding in Umesh Sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... entered into a development agreement with one M/s Dipti Builders to develop plot no.257 for a consideration of Rs. 16.11 crores and construction of 18,000 sq.ft of built up area free of cost on plot No.256. Thereafter on 5.7.2007 a tripartite agreement was entered into between M/s Dipti Builders, a new buyer and respondents under which both the plots were transferred to the new buyer at a total consideration of Rs. 29.11 crores. Thus, in the return of income filed on 31.10.2006 for subject Assessment year, the petitioner offered only an amount of Rs. 16.11 crores for the purpose of capital gains tax. This was as the development agreement dated 16.6.2006 stand rescinded/modified by the sale agreement dated 5.7.2007. 5. For the following As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icer. Consequently, the consideration to be brought to tax was an amount Rs. 2.17 crores. On further appeal, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT (A) by holding that the decision of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia (supra) would not apply in the facts of the present case as in this case there is no dispute as to transfer of property taking place as a result of the development agreement. The dispute is with regard to quantum of sale consideration to be taken for the purpose of computing capital gains. Moreover, the Tribunal also placed reliance upon decision of Kalpataru Construction Overseas P.Ltd 13 SOT 194 wherein on similar facts the Tribunal had held that where consideration to be received originally was Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 16.6.2006 was not acted upon as it came to be superseded/modified by the Tripartite agreement dated 6.7.2007. This was the position when the return of income was filed. The income accrued and earned under the subsequent agreement dated 6.7.2002 was offered as capital gains in the subsequent years. Therefore, on the application of the real income theory, the Tribunal held that on these facts there would be neither accrual nor receipt of income to warrant bringing to tax to the constructed area of 18,000 sq.ft which has not been received by the respondentassessee. As observed by the Apex Court in CIT vs Shoorji Vallabhdas 46 ITR 144. "Incometax is a levy on income. No doubt, the IncomeTax Act takes into account two points of time at which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tween the two groups, the dispute reached the Company Law Board as well as the Supreme Court of India. Thereafter, a settlement was arrived at between the two warring groups of shareholders and as per directions of the Company Law Board the assesseecompany was directed to buy 34 % shareholding of one of the warring group and cancel the same. The respondentassessee had claimed before the Assessing Officer that the amount of Rs. 6.81 crores (being the difference between consideration paid and face value of the shares acquired for cancellation) was revenue expenditure. This on the basis that in view of the dispute between its shareholders, the business was adversely affected and therefore, the payment was expected to be incurred for purposes o....