TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 872
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsfer documents i.e. sale deed, POA etc. contains a special provision that litigations are going and the possession is with the RIICO/Government. The buyer will only be entitle to claim compensation from the Government. Due to this fact, the seller will not be liable to pay anything to buyer due to the outcome of litigation and the buyer is only entitled to claim compensation from the government. c. The Transfer of Property Act Section 52 specifically says that when a court case is pending, any transfer pending litigation will be subjected to the outcome of such litigation failed to appreciate that in view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the subject land was not de-notified and possession in favour of RIICO by the State Government was upheld, therefore, vide sale deed dt. 2.2.2008 appellant had just sold the limited right in land which also had gone after the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and there cannot be transfer of land or building. And as per section 53A, unless the possession is handed over to transferee there cannot be any transfer of property. d. The chain of transfer shows that it was an agriculture lan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ined with the RIICO and not with the assessee. The sale deed was wrongly taken to be a transfer of capital asset, rather, it was only of rights. In view of the above, Section 50C of the Act of 1961 was not applicable yet covering the case by the aforesaid provision, additions were made. Learned counsel for petitioner has made reference of various orders passed by the Tribunal and also of the High Court. It is also submitted that Section 50C of the Act of 1961 cannot be invoked if property is lease hold and not free hold and also when there exist khatedari rights, if it is a revenue land. The ownership vest in the State Government in both the cases. The Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Central II, Mumbai Vs. M/s. Greenfield Hotels & Estates Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2016) 389 ITR 68 (Bom) held that Section 50C of the Act of 1961 would not be applicable when there is a transfer of lease hold rights of the land. In the instant case, the agriculture land was sold by the khatedar having rights like possessed by a lease holder. Taking into consideration the aforesaid, the order passed by the Tribunal may be interfered. We have heard lea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of transfer; (b) the value so adopted or assessed [or assessable] by the stmap valuation authority under sub-section (1) has not been disputed in any appeal or revision or no reference has been made before any other authority, court or the High Court, the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of the capital asset to a Valuation Officer and where any such reference is made, the provisions of sub-section (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of section 16A, clause (i) of sub-section (1) and sub-sections (6) and (7) of section 23A, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that Act. Explanation 1.-For the purposes of this section, "Valuation Officer" shall have the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957). Explanation 2.-For the purposes of this section, the expression "assessable" means the price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that appeal preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the Tribunal can be admitted. Learned counsel for appellant has made reference of certain orders passed by the Income Tax Appellant Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in the case of Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Jaipur Vs. Tara Chand Jain, 2/1, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, reported in (2015) 155 ITO 956 (JP), SCC ITAT and of the Income Tax Appellant Tribunal, Ahmedabad in the case of Smt. Devindraben I. Barot Vs. Income Tax Officer, reported in (2016) 159 ITD 162 (Ahm) apart from judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Greenfield Hotels & Estates Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The perusal of order passed by the ITAT, Ahmedabad reveals change of tenor of transaction for sale of land. The sale therein was through a registered sale deed for consideration but it was taken to be relinquishment of right. Without there being relinquishment deed and without examining what is the difference between sale of the land and relinquishment of right in the property, case was decided. In view of the above, order passed by the ITAT, Ahmedabad cannot be accepted. It failed to appreciate even legal provisions in reference t....