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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more