FA, 2020 amendment increasing...
During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that Stamp Duty value of the property transferred by assessee was more than its sale consideration. AO required assessee to show cause as to why Section 50C should not be invoked for the purpose of computation of capital gains. Assessee contended that Section 50C not applicable in its case as “capital asset” transferred does not fall within the purview of Section 50C.
Section 50C covers a “Capital Asset” being land or building or both” whereas assessee had transferred merely leasehold rights in the property.Assessee further contended that expression “land or building or both” used in Section 50C would not include leasehold right in land or building or both.
The assessment submitted that it had taken land on lease for a period of 90 years and constructed a tower out of which a portion had been sub-leased. What had been transacted was only leased right in the land or building, which was quite distinct from the "capital asset" referred to in Section 50C.
On allure, Delhi ITAT held that the articulation 'land or working' in its inclusion is very unmistakable from the articulation 'any privilege in land or building'. The assembly, in its insight, has utilized the articulation 'land or constructing or both' in segment 50C, and not the articulation 'any privilege in land or building.
Therefore, the express use of one expression would exclude the other. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has supported this legal premises in the case of GVK Industries Ltd. V. ITO.Thus, transfer of leasehold rights does not warrant invoking Section 50C since the said property is not of the nature covered by Section 50C.
Copyright ©2021 Finance seva. All Rights Reserved