Skip to main content

Section 50C Of IT Act Applicable to Sale of Leasehold Rights

In ITO v. Sh. Chander Sekhar, the ITAT Delhi held that income earned from transfer of leasehold rights is chargeable to Income Tax under section 50C of the Income Tax Act which provides for special provision for full value of consideration. While allowing a departmental appeal, the bench held that capital gains must be determined by price of the plot from the value of the property.

Assessee, in the instant case, was allotted a residential plot on 19.01.2004 in Sector-105, Noida through lottery on payment of allotment money of Rs. 1,30,000/-. The total purchase price of the plot was Rs. 16,75,000/-. Assessee entered into an agreement to sale with MIs Rosebud Construction Pvt. Ltd and agreed to transfer his leasehold rights in the said property for a consideration of Rs. 1,30,000/-. The balance amount to be paid for the acquisition of the plot i.e. Rs. 15,45,000/- was agreed to be paid by the Company directly to the Noida Authority. While completing assessment, AO took Full of Consideration as adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority as Long Term Capital Gain, and determined the total Sale price at Rs. 99,20,000/-. This amount was added back to the total income of the assessee.

Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/section-50c-applicable-sale-leasehold-rights-says-itat-delhi/8260/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Taxscan+%28Top+Stories+%E2%80%93+Taxscan+%7C+Simplifying+Tax+Laws%29

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Flat owner without legal title has consumer rights

In a significant judgment, the South Mumbai Consumer Forum has held that a flat owner legally occupying the flat would be a consumer, even if his title to the flat might be in dispute before a competent court. Thurlow owned a flat in a co-operative society. Appuswami was residing with him. In 1976, Appuswami got married in the same flat, and his wife started residing in the same flat. They had three children, born and brought up in the same flat. After Thurlow expired in 2004, Appuswami approached the High Court for inheritance to Thurlow's estate but expired while the matter was pending. His wife and children were brought on record. Subsequently, the society intervened, contending Appuswami did not have any right to the flat and it should be handed over to the Society. The Appuswami family continued to reside in the flat, and even pay the society's outgoings and maintenance charges. Later, the society stopped collecting maintenance charges from all members, as it earned...
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more