AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 1325
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssing long term capital gains of Rs. 6,66,44,262/- as against returned long term capital loss of Rs. 4,47,826/- by invoking provision of S. 50C to sale of undetermined beneficial rights in the land at Chembur without appreciating that provisions of S. 50C are applicable only to sale of land and building and it does not apply to sale of rights in land and building. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming order of Assessing officer assessing long term capital gains of Rs. 6,66,44,262/- as against returned long term capital loss of Rs. 4,47,826/- by invoking provision of S. 50C to sale of undetermined beneficial rights in the land at Chembur without appreciating that Sale Agreement dated 28/7/2007 was not registered and hence provisions o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....1. The brief facts brought before us are that on 28th July 2007 (falling in earlier A.Y. i.e. 2008-09), the assessee had vide an agreement sold his right to acquire/ own 5000 sq. yards of land situated at Chheda Nagar, Ghatkopar for a consideration of Rs. 23,53,000/- on as is where is basis to M/s. Chheda Reality Pvt. Ltd. During the year, full payment was received by the assessee and therefore, it disclosed long term capital loss for an amount of Rs. 4,47,826/- by taking actual sale consideration at Rs. 24,03,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noted by the AO that aforesaid agreement was not registered with the Stamp Duty Authorities and also possession of the land was not given to the assessee. But, according to h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. It was also argued that the impugned land involved huge litigation and assessee was not given possession of the said land. Therefore, rate as per ready reckoner could not have been adopted blindly. But, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed all the arguments of the assessee. With respect to the argument on retrospective nature of the amendment made in section 50C e.w.f. 01.10.2009, though the Ld. CIT(A) agreed in principle that the aforesaid said amendment was prospective, but he distinguished the case of the assessee on facts on the ground that execution of documents which would have effect of transferring of property to the assignees was not executed before 01.10.2009. 3.3. Before us Ld. counsel of the assessee vehemently argued the case and reiterate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ese circumstances, it could be very well said that for the purpose of section 50C, the transfer had taken place prior to the amendment made w.e.f. 01.10.2009, and therefore, amended provisions could not have been applied upon the assessee's case. 3.6. We have gone through the facts of the case as were brought out by both the parties before us. It is undisputed fact that agreement to sale was undoubtedly entered into between the parties on 28th day of July 2007. This is also undisputed that the agreement is unregistered agreement. Thus, Stamp Duty has not been assessed for the impugned transactions by the Stamp Valuation Authority. The case of the Revenue is that word 'assessable' has been inserted in section 50C. It is contended by the Ld.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e applied retrospectively. It is noted that it has been clarified by the Board that aforesaid amendment shall be applied in relation to transactions undertaken on/or after 01.10.2009. The said circular has been properly explained by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. R. Sugantha Ravindran (supra). It is further noted that that their lordships analysed the provision independently also and found that the impugned amendment was not applicable on the transactions done prior to 01.10.2009. The relevant portion of observations of Hon'ble High Court is reproduced hereunder: "Even otherwise, we are of the firm view that the insertion of the words "or assessable" by amending section 50C with effect from October 1, 2009, is neither....