Gulshan Malik v CIT (IT APPEAL NO. 55 OF 2014 dated 14.03.2014) – Delhi High Court Background: The assessee and his wife had booked an apartment vide an application dated 31.07.2004, by payment of a booking amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-on 3.08.2004 and consequently, it is claimed, acquired rights or interests in the same. The builder DLF issued a letter dated 6.08.2004 provisionally allotting the apartment and two parking spaces. A buyer’s agreement was executed on 4.11.2004 between DLF and the allottees. Per the payment schedule, a total payment of Rs. 87,12,500/- was made from 31.07.2004 to 03.08.2006 towards the purchase of the apartment. Following this, the Assessee entered into an agreement to sell dated 2.11.2007 to sell their booking rights/rights or interest in the apartment. In the computation of income, the assessee declared a long term capital gain of Rs. 31,35,740/- on the sale of booking rights/extinguishment of rights in the apartment (period between acquisition and sale of the booking rights in the apartment was claimed to be 39 months and 2 days). An exemption was claimed under Section 54 of the Act, 1961 as the same was invested in purchase of another apartment in June 2008.
Capital Gains
ITO v SMT BINA GUPTA [ITA No.4074/Del/2012 (dtd 18/10/2013) (Delhi ITAT)] Background: Assessee sold house on 13.06.2008 on which long term capital gain was shown at Rs.31,00,369. Deduction u/s 54 was claimed for entire capital gain on a/c of investment in house. Assessee has also sold a plot at Sradhapuri, Meerut on 10.11.2008 on which Long Term Capital Gain is shown at Rs.19,89,914/-. Deduction u/s 54F has been claimed for this entire amount on a/c of investment in the same houseas mentioned above. The AO found that the assessee had advanced monies to the builder on agreement and deposited money in capital gains scheme. The AO held that since no house had been purchased till the date of assessment order as two years period had lapsed, deduction u/s 54 and 54F was to be disallowed.
Deduction u/s 54-54F allowed if delivery of house could not be obtained but entire payment ...
CIT v Pursarth Trading Co. (P.) Ltd. [IT Appeal (L) No. 123 of 2013] dtd March 13, 2013 (Bombay High Court) Background: The assessee sold its office premises and secured long term capital gains. However, being a depreciable asset computed its gains in terms of Section 50 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee to set off its carry forward long term capital loss against the long term capital gains made under Section 74 of the Act in view of Section 50 of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer.
Long Term capital loss can be setoff against Short Term gain u/s 50 (if the ...
M/s BHORUKA ENGINEERING INDS LTD vs DCIT ITA No.120 of 2011 dated 9.4.2013 – Karantaka HC Background: Bhoruka Steel Limited (BSL) was incorporated in the year 1969. The company became a sick industrial company within the meaning of SICA.It was proposed that 30 acres of land along with building and structure to be disposed of. The valuers vide their valuation report dated 15.3.2002 valued the said land at Rs.25 Lakhs per acre. The company had received an offer from Bhoruka Financial Services Limited (BFSL), a public limited company and also one of the group Companies offered to purchase 30 acres of land for Rs.25 Lakhs per acre. Land measuring 15 acres was sold in favour of BFSL. The assessee company is a limited company whose shares are quoted in the stock exchange. The assessee is holding shares in BFSL. The assessee and other promoter shareholders are holding 98.73% shares in BFSL, whereas the public shareholders are holding the remaining shares. The assessee in the financial year related to the relevant assessment year 2006-07 sold its shareholdings in BFSL to the extent of 45,350 shares for a net consideration of Rs.20,29,08,626/- after paying Security Transaction Tax. The shares were sold to DLF Commercial Developers Limited. The assessee claimed the gain on sale of shares as exempt from taxation under Section 10 (38) of the Act.
Tax planning within 4 corners of law is not tax avoidance – Karnataka HC
Smt Sriram Indubal v ITO (ITA No: 1950 MDS of 2012 dtd 31.01.2013) – Chennai ITAT Background: The assessee had sold a property comprising of land and building for a consideration of Rs. 3,46,50,000. Sale proceeds were invested by the assessee in 54EC bonds in two instalments i.e. first Rs. 50 lakhs in REC Bond on 27.2.2008 and second Rs. 50 lakhs in NHAI Bond on 27.06.2008. The AO held that investments under section 54EC had to be made within six months from the date of transfer of capital asset. Since the statute pegged the investment for which exemption was allowable in an assessment year to Rs. 50 lakhs, the second sum of Rs. 50 lakhs invested on 30.6.2008 was not eligible for deduction under Section 54EC of the Act.
54EC allowed to the extent of Rs 1 crore if split equally between 2 financial ...
Sunil Sachdeva v ACIT (IT APPEAL NO. 4179 (DELHI) OF 2011) Delhi ITAT Background: During the course of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer noticed that assessee sold shares of M/s Capital Advertising Pvt. Ltd. for a sale consideration of Rs. 5,62,87,500/-. Assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 1,22,23,250/- u/s. 54F of the I.T. Act. The assessee has invested Rs. 1,22,23,250/- on 31.7.2008 in the special gain account maintained with the Syndicate Bank. The CIT(A) made an enhancement by holding that assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s. 54F(1) on the payment of Rs. 55,70,800/-. This has been denied on the ground that the payment was made by M/s Capital Advertising Pvt. Ltd. wherein the assessee was Director and not by the assessee himself.
Reimbursement of cost of property entitled to 54F deduction – Delhi ITAT
CIT v Gita Duggal ITA No. 1237/2011 (Del HC) dtd 21.02.2013 Background: Assessee was the owner of property in New Delhi comprising of the basement, ground floor, first floor and second floor. On 08.05.2006 she entered into a collaboration agreement with a developer for redeveloping the property. According to its terms, the assessee being desirous of getting the property redeveloped/reconstructed and not being possessed of sufficient finance and lacking in experience in construction, approached the builder to develop the property for and on behalf of the owner at the cost of the builder. The builder was to demolish the existing structure on the plot of land and develop, construct, and/or put up a building consisting of basement, ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor with terrace at its own costs and expenses. In addition to the cost of construction incurred by the builder on development of the property, a further payment of Rs. four crores was payable to the assessee as consideration against the rights of the assessee. The builder was to get the third floor.
“A” residential house u/s 54/54F includes “a” residential building comprising of several flats – Del ...
Shri Irfan Abdul Kader Fazlani vs ACIT I.T.A. NO.8831/M/2011 (Mum ITAT) Background: Assessee is a shareholder in M/s. Kamala Mansion Pvt. Ltd (KMPL). Along with other shareholders of this company, the assessee sold his shares for a consideration of Rs. 37.51 lakhs and capital gains were offered on that basis. KMPL owns two flats in a building known as Om Vikas Apartments situated at Walkeshwar Road, Mumbai and the said flats are regularly given on rent and the rent is declared by KMPL as ‘income from the house property’. Assessee sold his 306 shares for a sum of Rs. 37,51,369/ and earned long term capital gains. AO held that by engineering the sale of the shares of all other shareholders of M/s. KMPL, the assessee effectively transferred the immovable property belonging to the assessee, therefore, it is an indirect way of transferring the immovable properties for lesser consideration and, therefore, the provisions of section 50C of the Act have application to the facts of the case and consequently, AO applied the guideline prices of the flats and worked out the capital gains. Further, AO treated this case as an eligible case for piercing of corporate veil. He accordingly ‘pierced the corporate veil, invoked s. 50C and computed the capital gains by adopting the stamp duty value of the flats.
50C is not applicable where property is indirectly sold by way of trf of shares ...
Shavo Norgren (P) Ltd Vs DCIT ITA No.8101/Mum/2011 dtd 14.12.2012 [Mumbai ITAT] Background: Assessee had taken a plot of land on lease from MIDC in the year 1967 for a lease of 95 years commencing from 1st January, 1967. Assessee had also paid premium to MIDC as per their rules prevalent at that time. In the previous year 2007-08 assessee entered into a MOU for transfer of part of the said land on 9th April 2007, received an advance of Rs.30 lacs and applied to MIDC for their consent. The two plots together with Building thereon were transferred for a total sum of Rs.2,01,57,606. Assessee worked out capital gain of Rs.1,60,38,687 after deducting the value of building at Rs.14,30,220/- and the market value as on 1/4/1981 increased by indexation cost to Rs.26,88,699. The AO applied Sec. 50C of the Income tax Act and considered the market value of the plot of land at Rs.2,39,91,000 and considered this as long term capital gain for the purpose of computation of income.