TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 101
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant was "immovable property" and that the stamp value adopted by the Sub-Registrar should be taken into consideration for evaluating the consideration paid by the appellant under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that "property" as defined in explanation (d) to sub-section 56(2)(vii) of the Act included immovable property under sub-clause(i) to mean capital assets "being land or building or both" and TDR acquired by the appellant could not be regarded as either land or building for nature of TDR allowed the appellant the right to additional Floor Square Index (FSI for short) and hence, the same was outside the scope of section 56(2)(vii)(b) invoked by the Assessing Officer for making the impugned addition under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 4. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the value of TDR estimated by the Sub-Registrar on the transfer of the TDR under the provisions of the Karnataka Stamp Act, cannot be adopted as consideration under the provisions of Income Tax Act, especially when explanation (f) of section 56(2)(vii) contemplates the adoption of the stamp ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ight measuring 4645.113 sq. mts. (50,000 sq. ft.) (schedule property C). 3.1 As per the deed of conveyance dated 20.02.2014, assessee paid a consideration of Rs. 1.14 crores for receipt of rights and paid the stamp duty of Rs. 5,84,000/- and registration fees at Rs. 5,17,000/- as per the guidance value of the property fixed by Government of Karnataka at Rs. 5.16 crores as per the conveyance deed dated 20.02.2014 which implied that the stamp duty value was paid for the guidance value fixed by the Sub-Registrar, Bengaluru which is Rs. 5.16 crores. The assessee had paid an amount of Rs. 1.14 crores as sale consideration for the TDR for transfer of 50,000 sq. fts. at Rs. 224/- per sq. ft. as against Rs. 1032/- fixed by sub-registrar. The amount of Rs. 1.14 crores was paid considering the TDR as transfer of land, i.e. rights in lands. 3.2 As per the AIR information available with the department, and as per the deed of conveyance dated 20.02.2014, the transaction value of the property was Rs. 5.16 crores for which assessee had paid the stamp duty value as against the claim of value of property at Rs. 1.12 crores. When confronted, the assessee furnished a written submission along wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....along with cost of lands, the CIT(A) found that the assessee had not filed the balance sheet of the relevant assessment year and balance sheet had shown no breakup of cost of land and the TDRs. The CIT(A) concluded that the TDRs are nothing but transferable on sale of same within the meaning of provisions of Transfer of Property Act and TDRs being the capital asset, the same would result in invoking the provisions of section 50C and accordingly, dismissed this ground of appeal of the assessee. 5. Against this, the assessee has filed this appeal before us. The Ld. AR referred to section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the I.T. Act which reads as follows: (a)................ (b) any immovable property (i) without consideration, the stamp duty values of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the stamp value of such property; (ii) for a consideration which is less than the stamp duty value of the property by an amount exceeding fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property as exceeds such consideration; ......................... Further Explanation to the above section reads as follows: (a)............... (b).........
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 56 of the I.T. Act. 5.3 The Ld. AR relied on the following case laws: 1. CIT vs.Thiruvengadam Investments P. Ltd. (320 ITR 343) (Mad.). 2. Atul G Puranik vs. ITO (11 ITR (Trib.) 120 (Mum.). 3. Shri Prem Rattan Gupta in ITA No. 5803/Mum/2009 dated 28/03/2012 (Mum.) 4. M/s. KANCAST Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO in ITA No.1265/PN/2011 dated 19/01/2015 (Pune) 5. Shri Farid Gulmohammed vs. ITO in ITA No.5136/Mum/2014 dated 16/03/2015 (Mum. Trib.)) 6. Shri Satendra Koushik in ITA No.392/JP/2019 dated 23/04/2019 (Jaipur Trib.). 7. Shavo Norgen Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (58 SOT 23) (Mum. Trib.) 5.4 The Ld. AR submitted that the above decisions were rendered in the context of lease hold rights and the authorities had clearly held that Land is different and any rights attributed to land is different. Similarly, building is different and any rights attributed to building is different. According to the Ld. AR, they are all together independent and separate. Thus, it was submitted that point of law applies with equal force to developmental rights and the fact that the rights are saleable do not make any difference as any rights whether it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or acquiring shares in, a co-operative society, company or other association of persons or by way of any agreement or any arrangement of whatever nature), not being a transaction by way of sale, exchange or lease of such land, building or part of a building; 5.6 The Ld. AR submitted that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the I.T. Act are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The Ld. AR submitted that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the I.T. Act will have application to the property which is in the nature of capital asset and it will not be applicable to the transfer of development rights (TDR). According to the Ld. AR, the said provision is applicable only to landed building which is tangible immovable property and TDR not being a tangible asset, it cannot be considered as capital asset u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the I.T. Act. 6. The Ld DR on the other hand submitted that transfer of development rights is transfer of capital asset and the provisions of section 269UA(2)(d) of the I.T. Act is not relevant to the facts of the present case. According to him section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the I.T. Act is applicable. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the low....