TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 122
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e have filed cross appeals. The issues raised in the present bunch of appeals are co-related and dependent on each other, hence the appeals are being decided by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. The issues raised in present bunch of appeals are similar and were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. However, reference is made to the facts and issues raised in assessment year 2003-04 in order to adjudicate the issues. 3. The assessee in ITA No.929/PUN/2014, relating to assessment year 2003-04 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. Learned CIT(A) erred in not accepting that appeal is extended arm of the State Government of Maharashtra and consequently the income of Appellant is not taxable under Income Tax Act 1961. Without Prejudice to the above ground the following grounds of appeal are raised: 2. The Hon'ble ITAT may kindly hold that the appellant is engaged in charitable activity and that all property held is under trust. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in directing the appellant to seek administrative measures and not granting benefit o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r to 1/4/2002. 5. The additional grounds of appeal raised by assessee are legal issues and it does not require investigation of facts, hence the same are admitted for adjudication. 6. The Revenue in COs / appeals have raised the following common grounds of objections / appeal:- 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in allowing depreciation on brought forward block of assets of the assessee Trust, when the AO had rightly reworked the WDV of assets of the assessee by considering the Explanation 4 to Section 32 of the IT Act? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing depreciation even if the income is to be completed after application of Sec. 11 to 13 of the IT Act, which results into double relief i.e. application of money on depreciable capital assets and the re depreciation again on such assets. 7. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee was an institution set up for the purpose of providing housing facilities, promoting townships within the area of jurisdiction as directed by the Government of Maharashtra. The assessee was enjoying....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... year. In assessment year 2008-09, the Assessing Officer instead of 1/99th of premium, treated entire years' receipts as income of assessee and on same lines for assessment year 2003-04. The assessee had recognized only Rs. 1,23,42,928/- at 1/99th part of rent accrued on lease properties. 8. The Assessing Officer then has referred to reply given by assessee in response to notice issued under section 263 of the Act to the Commissioner of Income-tax-V, Pune under para 8 and under para 9 the submissions of assessee before the Assessing Officer. The assessee pleaded that it was an artificial judicial person formed and constituted under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and the rules framed thereunder. The existing system of books of account was primarily fund based accounting. The three funds were (i) Pradhikaran Fund/ General Fund, (ii) Development Fund and (iii) Depreciation Fund. The assessee pointed out that income and outgoing of three funds were recorded and posted as per directions of Government of Maharashtra from time to time. It was also pointed out that audit of entre transactions and activities of assessee were conducted by auditors appointed by Govern....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ognizing of revenue and receipts. He concluded by holding that instead of recognizing entire receipts of the year and including it in its hands, only a part of these receipts were offered as income in the accounts. The Assessing Officer was of the view that accounting method followed by assessee was defective accounting method. The assessee was following accrual method of accounting, which as per the Assessing Officer was not reflecting real income and was erroneous. It was observed by him vide para 11.4 of assessment order that the assessee had constructed various properties and given them on long term lease of 99 years to various lessees from time to time as per provisions of 'land disposal rule' approved by Government of Maharashtra for this purpose. The lease deed was executed between assessee (lessor) and the lessee on consideration of one time premium at the time of lease i.e. Rs. 1 per year for term of lease of 99 years. The Assessing Officer further observed that no further consideration accrues from the lessee during the effective years of lease. However, the revenue was recognized @ 1/99th and the assessee had classified the transaction as operating lease and wherein the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....99 years, which was more than 12 years, therefore it was case of transfer of property and one time premium received at the time of agreement was income of assessee. He further held that entire consideration received was the income of assessee for the same year in which it was received. He also held that there was no justification for deferring income by spreading the amount already received to a period of 99 years. Finally, it was observed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee was not obliged to provide any services or incurred any expenditure over the period of 99 years in terms of agreement. The Assessing Officer also held that transaction amounted to transfer of asset and was chargeable as capital gains. 10. The second issue which was considered by Assessing Officer was transfer premium, wherein on transfer of any plot by original owner, transfer premium was to be paid before transferring the term of lease in respect of balance period available of the lease period. The assessee had charged 50% of amount charged by earlier lessee to the new lessee to whom the lease was assigned for the balance period of assigning the lease. Where the assessee was not obliged to provide an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt in appeal against order of Commissioner in granting registration under section 12AA of the Act w.e.f. 30.11.2006 and the Tribunal vide order dated 19.05.2010 allowed the appeal of assessee and has directed the Commissioner to grant registration under section 12AA of the Act to the assessee w.e.f. 01.04.2002. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the Commissioner passed an order dated 28.06.2010 and granted registration under section 12AA of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2002 with direction to Assessing Officer that registration granted under section 12AA r.w.s. 12A of the Act was not conclusive in respect of claim of exemption under sections 11 to 13 of the Act while processing the return of income. The Department also filed an appeal against order of Tribunal before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. 13. The Assessing Officer made certain observations on the objects of trust and activities of assessee and was of the view that activities of assessee cannot be said to be charitable in nature, since the assessee was involved in business activities of profit with objects of those of commercial organization. However, for judicial propriety, he held that assessee's case was to be considered un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Assessing Officer passed an order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act on 30.12.2011 determining income at Rs. 26,63,31,810/-. Against the said assessment order, appeal was filed before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) noted the status of various years litigation in assessee's own case including specific appellate orders in the context of approval under section 12A of the Act. The same are tabulated and reproduced at pages 5 to 8 of appellate order. On perusal of the same, the CIT(A) observed as under:- "4.7 A perusal of the above chart reveals following position. a) The appellant applied for 12A, which was rejected initially, but accorded later on by the Honorable ITAT with effect from 01/04/2002 (i.e. A.Y. 2003-04). As such, assessments of the appellant will have to be concluded in the frame-work of Section 11 of the ITA, 1961. b) The returns of earlier years prior to A.Y. 2008-09 were filed by the appellant without considering the exemption u/s 11, as the issue of registration u/s 12A was pending then, though a note as to claim of exemption was submitted with return of income. c) When the tax disputes of earlier years prior to A.Y. 2008-09 (a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otment. As per agreement with the respective parties, the advance premium on land / constructed units was refundable to the lessee of the plot if lessee decides to cancel lease. Hence, the assessee did not have contractual right to appropriate the entire premium to Income and Expenditure Account, that is why it recognized 1/99 advance lease premium on constructed units as income of each year. However, the Assessing Officer has considered entire amount of premium as income and added the same in the hands of assessee. The assessee also explained various contractual terms of agreement of non-assignment, reversion of possession after completion of lease period, non-mortgage of leasehold rights without consent of authorities. The assessee stressed that accounting method it was following needs to be adopted, wherein 10% of profit was estimated on land allotment. It was also explained that the assessee had not claimed proportionate cost on such lands since the said cost was incurred over the period of many years. Further, the assessee had also not claimed any deduction on account of infra development cost incurred, which again was incurred over period of many years. Thus, the assessee obj....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fusion with regard to computation of income, as such, reliance may not be placed on Form No.10 already filed and the assessee be allowed to submit corrected Form No.10. 16. The CIT(A) vide para 11 decides the first issue of recognition of income in the hands of assessee and rejected the plea of assessee that only 10% of plot premium is considered as eligible revenue. Reliance on the guidance given by Dandekar Committee Report appointed by the Government was not accepted as no such report was filed before him. Secondly, the plea of assessee to take revenue at only 10% of plot revenue receipts was held to be not correct. He was of the view that entire receipts were to be considered as eligible revenue for working out taxable income and exemption under section 11 of the Act. Coming to next plea of claim of deduction of matching land cost, it was held that process of deducting income of charitable institute was akin to receipt and payment account. Where the land cost was incurred in earlier years, such land cost ought to be an application of income in such earlier years, hence this plea of assessee was also not accepted. The next issue which was deliberated upon by the CIT(A) was th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was thus, not providing depreciation under the Income-tax Act, value of assets after depreciation actually provided should be considered as WDV of assets as on 01.04.2002 i.e. opening WDV for assessment year 2003-04. The assessee claimed that this issue stands covered by Explanatory Note to Finance Act, 2008, clause 14 and hence, the question of opening WDV has to be decided for assessment year 2003-04. The CIT(A) in view of specific provisions of Explanation 6 to section 43(6) of the Act, held that it only appropriate to allow depreciation on brought forward block of assets of the assessee. For assessment year 2003-04, one issue which was decided by CIT(A) was that the Assessing Officer had to frame assessment de-novo after order of Tribunal allowing registration under section 12A of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2002. Hence, the income needed to be computed strictly as per section 11 of the Act, since the whole gamut of assessment had changed, then Assessing Officer could not sustain addition of Rs. 5.74 crores made in the first round of assessment and the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the same. 17. Both the assessee and Revenue are in appeal against respective portions of o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ten submissions filed before the CIT(A) and pointed out that under-mentioned issues were raised before him: a) Land cost of earlier years needs to be allowed though no breakup could be given before the CIT(A); b) Land acquired in current year was claimed and allowed as application of income but the Revenue was not in appeal on this issue i.e. in assessment year 2008-09; c) Depreciation on leased building, where the leased buildings were given on lease from past years and assessee claimed depreciation on it; d) The Assessing Officer had allowed application of income on cost of leased buildings in the respective years of purchase but had denied depreciation on the ground that it amounted to double deduction. 20. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that applying matching principle, the proportionate cost of building / land sold merits to be allowed in the hands of assessee and / or allow depreciation on building. The assessee was showing lease rent for the year and claiming depreciation. However, now since the entire lease rent for 99 years has been brought to tax in the year of receipt, then cost of construction pl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that where the assessee was not claiming depreciation on assets, Assessing Officer's exercise of going back by one year was uncalled for. Then referring to page 31 of order of CIT(A), contention No.6 with regard to form No.10 and pages 35 and 36, it was pointed out that where the assessee trust was not recognized under section 12A of the Act, there was no question of filing form No.10 in original proceedings and additionally the revenue was recognized and in any case, the revenue recognition i.e. 1/99th lease premium was reasonable method. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the CIT(A) has in para 18 held that income had to be computed as per section 11 of the Act. Referring to series of cases, it was pointed out that first of all, land cost is to be allowed against recognized income in the hands of assessee and reliance was placed on the following decisions:- a) Calcutta Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 1 (SC), where it has been recognized that few liabilities to be accounted for against sale proceeds of the said land. b) CIT Vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection reported in 264 ITR 110 (Bom) for the proposition that co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... It was further pointed out that reliance on Calcutta Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) is misplaced as the ratio laid down therein is applicable to commercial entities. It was further pointed out that cases which were relied upon by the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee were following mercantile system of accounting, whereas the assessee was following cash system of accounting. Our attention was drawn to observations of Tribunal at page 2 in ACIT Vs. Punjab Urban Development Authority (supra), wherein it was held that income and expenditure cannot be shifted when there is change in system of accounting. Regarding depreciation, it was also pointed out that Assessing Officer had re-computed WDV and the CIT(A) has given relief and for this, reliance was placed on the order of Assessing Officer. With regard to deliberations on financial lease, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue placed reliance on the order of CIT(A). 24. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in rejoinder stressed that the assessee was following mercantile system of accounting now, though in earlier years no proper method was followed. It was also pointed out that for t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the hands of assessee. In this regard it was pointed out that the said decision was neither quoted before the Tribunal while arguing appeal against order passed under section 263 of the Act nor was it referred in the said order. However, it was solitary decision on the point and the facts of said case and the facts of assessee were similar and the assessee stood at better position, wherein it was local authority created for the purpose and the assessee before the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh was a company. It was then pointed out by the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee that where the treatment of one time lease premium was treated as advance rent and has been approved by the Hon'ble High Court, then in the absence of any contrary decision on this point wherein the issue of lease premium of said controlled Government Corporation was involved have been decided, then the said decision of the Hon'ble High Court becomes binding on the Tribunals operating all over the country. For this proposition, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Godavaridevi Saraf reported in 113 ITR 589 (Bom) and also decision of Pune Bench o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f 5 years. 26. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue after going through written submissions, pointed out that no part of expenses were to be allowed since all costs were prior to year 2002, so it was allowed in the hands of assessee. In this regard, she placed reliance on the orders of Assessing Officer/CIT(A). She said that same was left to the wisdom of Tribunal. Coming to accumulation of profits in Form No.10, it was pointed out that same had to be allowed by the Commissioner and whatever was excess, the assessee has to apply to the Commissioner on this regard. With regard to recognition of lease premium, it was stressed that the issue stands covered by the order of Tribunal in assessee's own case. 27. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in rejoinder stressed that the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue states that no expenses are to be allowed to assessee; but matching principle has to be applied and since what is to be taxed in the hands of assessee is income and not total revenue. If the revenue model is disturbed, then form No.10 would have to be revised and for this, suitable directions be granted. 28. We have h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s regard, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee has relied on the terms of lease and also latest decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Indore) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra). 30. The assessee has been granted registration under section 12A of the Act by Tribunal vide its order dated 20.04.2009. Consequently, the income which is to be assessed in the hands of assessee as provided under sections 11 and 12 of the Act i.e. income of trust. In this regard, as early as in 1968, CBDT had issued circular dated 19.06.1968. Under the said circular, it was provided that where a religious or charitable trust was claiming exemption under section 11(1) of the Act, then it must spent atleast 75% of its total income for religious or charitable purposes (now it is 85% of total income). In other words, it was allowed to accumulate more than 25% of its total income. The circular further referring to section 11(1) of the Act explained that reference in sub-section (a) is invariably to 'income' and not to 'total income'. Further vide para 3 it is explained that in case of business undertaking held under trust, its income would be the income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al authority and was entitled to exemption under section 10(20A) of the Act upto assessment year 2002-03. The assessee on a later date applied for grant of registration under section 12A of the Act in order to enable it to claim exemption under section 11 of the Act. The assessment was completed in the hands of assessee by Assessing Officer without allowing any exemption under section 11 of the Act. After receipt of registration under section 12A of the Act, the assessee obtained audit report as was required under section 12A(1)(b) of the Act for the purpose and same was filed along with form No.10 before the CIT(A) and claim for exemption under section 11 of the Act was made, for the first time before the CIT(A). However, this claim was rejected by CIT(A) on the ground that claim was not made in the original return and form No.10 and audit report in support of that claim were not filed before the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal set aside assessment on the ground that proceedings before CIT(A) were continuation of assessment and directed the Assessing Officer to make de-novo assessment. At the time of de-novo assessment, form No.10, audit report and documents were already on record....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... recognized. The Tribunal further held that in case where cash system of accounting was followed, then whatever expenditure has been incurred in cash during the year has to be allowed. In the case before the Tribunal, the assessee had neither offered installments as income nor claimed expenditure. So, it was held that installments received had been rightly included in the income of assessee, therefore, corresponding expenditure which has been incurred in cash towards construction of such houses and flats was also to be allowed. 34. Coming to the facts of present case, the assessee was formed under Notification dated 14.03.1972 issued by the Maharashtra State under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 as a new township in Pimpri-Chinchwad area of Pune district. The assessee was a special purpose vehicle formed for the designated objects of area development as envisaged under section 113 of the said MRTP Act. The assessee after notification dated 14.03.1972 started development of area by taking over various lands in notified areas. The assessee on one hand developed overall area and created various infra facilities; and on the other hand, the assessee allotted develope....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee and Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Before decision of Tribunal, the Commissioner issued notice under section 263 of the Act and passed order under section 263 of the Act on 07.03.2011. The Tribunal set aside the issue of depreciation in respect of Revenue appeal and directed adjudication under the consideration, since the registration under section 12A of the Act was available. The Assessing Officer was thus, directed to compute income in terms of sections 11 and 12 of the Act. The Tribunal passed this order on 30.12.2011. Simultaneously, on the same day, the Assessing Officer passed an order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act on 30.12.2011 determining income at Rs. 27.63 crores. Against the said order, appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who clearly acknowledged that the whole gamut of assessment had changed because of registration granted under section 12A of the Act. The CIT(A) thereafter, decided the issue and the assessee is aggrieved by the same and hence, the appeal before us. Meanwhile, the Tribunal has also decided appeal filed against order of Commissioner passed under section 263 of the Act. 35. The first issue raised before us is the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be claimed are worked out in a step-wise manner. Hereinbelow, meaning and rationale of each step is being stated for the sake of easy reference. Same is as follows: Step No. Land cost Constructed Area cost 1 Area Total notified area for PCNTDA is taken on the basis of letter of PCNTDA dated 27/11/2018 Area Total constructed area of PCNTDA as of 31/3/2002 is taken from the certificate of PCNTDA dated 27/11/2018 2. Area Land in possession of PCNTDA is as per the certificate given by PCNTDA dated 27/11/2018. Cost Total land cost of Rs. 774.86 lacs is taken from the Opening Balancesheet of PCNTDA as of 31/3/2002 Area Total constructed area of PCNTDA as of 31/3/2002 is taken from the certificate of PCNTDA dated 27/11/2018 Cost Total cost of constructed area of Rs. 12399.72 lacs is taken from the Opening Balancesheet as of 31/3/2002 3. On an overall basis, PCNTDA has confirmed that, land area of about 50% is used for creating various INFRA facilities and balance 50% land area is used for various developments to be used for own purpose or to be used for leasing purpose. (Not applicable) 4. Area Balance 50% area of land i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Proportionate cost has been worked out the basis of total land cost & total land area as to the proportion of area sold from 1/04/2002 till 31/03/2014 The appellant is eligible to claim the said proportionate cost in a year in which area is leased out. 9. Area Balance Area is available to leased out is derived from above steps Cost Balance cost available to claim as on 31/03/2014 is derived from above steps Area Balance area is available to lease out on 31/03/2014 is as per certificate of PCNTDA dated 27/11/2018. Cost Balance cost available to claim is derived from above steps 37. The assessee has enclosed tabulated details in this regard, which reads as under:- Step No. Particulars Land Area Amount Hectors Rs. In lacs Constructed Area Area Amount SQ Meters) Rs. In lacs 1 Total Notified Area to PCNTDA 2586.55 3,96240.80 2. Land in possession / constructed area as on 31/3/2002 1586.72 774.86 3,96,240.80 12,399.72 3. Presumption of 50% land used for INFRA 50% Not applicable Not applicable 4. Developed Land Area ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n including land and cost of constructed premises works out to Rs. 125.95 crores. Out of total constructed area of 396240 sq.mtrs., the value of area which was leased out after 01.04.2002 till 31.03.2014 (as per Schedule 1 to the calculation filed) works out to 40,674 sq.mtrs. valuing Rs. 12.92 crores (approx.) The closing balance available for lease as on 31.03.2014 as per schedule 2 is 2171 sq.mtrs. valued at Rs. 69 lakhs. Hence, the value of area which was leased prior to 2002 works out to Rs. 112.33 crores. In other words, as far as years under appeal are concerned, the value of area leased out was Rs. 12.92 crores (approx.), which is to be bifurcated over the number of years. The assessee has furnished certificate of architect in this regard and the Assessing Officer is directed to carry out necessary verification and allow deduction on account of cost of constructed premises to the assessee in the respective years. 40. Now, coming to next stand of assessee that besides carving out the plots of land and constructing premises for leasing out, the assessee had also developed the area i.e. built roads, infra ways, constructed projects and the cost of said items were booked und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....INFRA cost is an asset used by PCNTDA for its overall activity. Ownership of the said asset (i.e. INFRA facilities) vests with PCNTDA. In other words, ownership of such INFRA facilities does not get transferred to any users / lessees. Considering this aspect, PCNTDA is eligible to claim depreciation on cost of such INFRA facilities / INFRA assets. These INFRA costs are incurred on an ongoing basis / regular basis. Learned I-T authorities have simply allowed costs incurred in each year on these INFRA facilities. However, the learned I-T authorities ought to have granted depreciation on these INFRA facilities costs which includes opening balance as on 31/3/2002 as well as yearly costs incurred thereafter. PCNTDA keeps reliance on the apex court ruling in the case. CIT vs Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona - 89 taxmann.com 127 (SC)." 41. The infra cost which has been incurred by assessee and which was the opening balance as on 31.03.2002 in the hands of assessee on account of creation of roads, creation of parks, water tanks, bridges, etc. and also the items booked under the head relating to water and drainage system was the basic framework provided by the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as assessed in the hands of assessee in the year in which the assessee had entered into agreement of lease. The corresponding fall out to which is that the concept of matching principle has to be applied and where the assessee had entered into agreement to lease, then the cost of said assets needs to be allowed as deduction in its hands. 43. Another aspect which needs to be kept in mind is that the assessee was recognizing income on the basis of 1/99th premium and hence, the premium relating to past years transactions were also offered to tax by assessee. The CIT(A) has directed the Assessing Officer to work out the figures of earlier years premium on plots of land sold and plots of tenements sold. The same needs to be excluded in the hands of assessee. Further, the assessee on transfer of plots / properties after lock in period of 5 years, was receiving premium for the aforesaid transfer. The assessee was offering said premium also in staggered manner. So, the figures of plot premium and property premium were not only included the amount attributable to properties which were transferred in earlier years and only part of premium for the year under consideration was offered to ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llowed as application of income in the hands of assessee and the objection of Revenue is that allowing depreciation on such assets would result in double relief. 47. We find that this issue stands squarely covered by the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona (supra), wherein it has been held that where the assessee charitable institution is registered under section 12A of the Act, even though expenditure incurred for acquisition of capital asset was treated as application of income for charitable purposes under section 11(1)(a) of the Act, yet depreciation is to be allowed on such assets. 48. We also find that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (supra) had also laid down similar proposition. Applying the same, we hold that ground of appeal No.2 raised by Revenue does not stand and the same is dismissed. 49. We have also decided the issue of application / adjudication of income in the hands of assessee after allowing deduction on account of land cost, constructed cost and depreciation on infra cost and also deduction on account of infra cost and also application ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee stressed that it was the obligation of assessee that in case any lessee surrenders the lease after 5 years, then 93/99 years premium had to be returned and such a liability was contractual liability. He further pointed out that the Tribunal while deciding the issue has no doubt decided the same against assessee but since the issue stands covered by the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh and where there is no contrary decision on the point, then the said decision of the Hon'ble High Court becomes solitary decision on the point. In this regard, he placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Godavaridevi Saraf (supra) and stressed that solitary non-jurisdictional decision was binding on the Tribunals operating all over the country. He further placed reliance on the decision of Pune Bench of Tribunal in Bhagini Nivedita Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra). He fairly pointed out that this decision was neither relied on nor referred before Tribunal during appeal against order under section 263 of the Act. 53. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue however, stre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tal land premium received by it during the year) as taxable. The assessee claimed that lease premium was not its income before the Hon'ble High Court, so it was decided that the said land premium was the income of assessee to be taxed under the Income-tax Act. Vide para 31 it was held that from the perusal of clauses of memorandum, it was revealed that the assessee was in the business of leasing out of land and getting rental income as well as premium, therefore, the land premium is nothing but a revenue receipt in the form of advance rent, which has loosely been named as land premium. The Hon'ble High Court noted that the assessee itself had offered 1/99th portion of such land premium as revenue receipt to be taxed in the year under consideration, which goes to prove that the nature of receipt is revenue. Reference was made to decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Member of the Board of Agricultural Income-tax v. Sindhur Chaudhurani (1957) 32 ITR 169 (SC) and it was held as under by Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh:- "34. In the case of Member of the Board of Agricultural Income-tax v. sindhur Chaudhurani (1957) 32 ITR 169 (SC) the Salamis/Premium w....