9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (1) TMI 886 - AT - Income TaxValue of benefit on purchase of flat - assessee has obtained the property less than the books value, this amount can safely be considered as a benefit obtained by the assessee Held that - Assessing Officer is directed to adopt the difference between the book value as per the books of SEPL and the amount paid by the assessee as a benefit obtained by the assessee. As the valuation fixed by the CIT(A) on the market value as in 1994 has no basis for consideration at the time of sale, the same cannot be considered as a correct valuation. The order of the CIT(A) is, therefore, modified and the benefit is restricted to the amount of net book value at the beginning of the year less the amount of consideration paid by the assessee. To that extent, the assessee s grounds are partly allowed. Perquisite for the rent chargeable under section 2(24)(iv) of the Act - valuation of perquisites under section 2(24)(iv) of the Act belonging to the company and used by a Director can only be made on the basis of standard rent on the basis of the High Court decision in the case of J. Dalmia (1981 - TMI - 29356 - DELHI High Court) Held that - rent paid being in excess of standard rent fixed, no further amount can be considered as the market rent to determine the value of benefit under section 2(24)(iv), order of the CIT(A) is upheld and revenue s grounds are rejected.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 2(24)(iv) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Valuation of benefit derived from the purchase of a flat. 3. Determination of perquisite value for rent paid under Section 2(24)(iv). Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Section 2(24)(iv) of the Income Tax Act: The primary issue in the assessee's appeal was whether the provisions of Section 2(24)(iv) of the Income Tax Act applied to the transfer of a flat by M/s. Semcon Electronics Private Limited to the appellant, and if so, the correctness of the valuation determined by the CIT(A). The assessee argued that Section 2(24)(iv) was not applicable, contending that the market value of the flat should be based on the value adopted by the Stamp Authorities, which was Rs. 6,00,000. The CIT(A) had valued the flat at Rs. 90,00,000, which the assessee challenged. The revenue, on the other hand, contended that the CIT(A) erred in reducing the Assessing Officer's valuation from Rs. 3.85 crores to Rs. 89.35 lakhs and argued that the assessee was not a protected tenant under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, thus justifying a higher valuation. 2. Valuation of Benefit Derived from the Purchase of a Flat: The assessee purchased a flat from SEPL for Rs. 10,00,000, while its book value was Rs. 1,14,44,394. The Assessing Officer valued the flat at Rs. 3.85 crores based on market rates and added the difference of Rs. 3.75 crores as a benefit under Section 2(24)(iv). The CIT(A) accepted the assessee as a protected tenant but valued the flat at Rs. 89.35 lakhs, reducing the benefit to Rs. 80,00,000. The Tribunal examined the applicability of Section 2(24)(iv) and the valuation methods. It concluded that the assessee obtained a benefit by purchasing the flat at a price lower than the market value. The Tribunal decided to use the book value of the flat as the basis for determining the benefit, considering the loss incurred by SEPL as the benefit received by the assessee. 3. Determination of Perquisite Value for Rent Paid under Section 2(24)(iv): The revenue's appeal included the issue of perquisite value for the rent paid by the assessee. The Assessing Officer had added Rs. 4,50,000, considering the market rent to be Rs. 1,55,000 per month, whereas the assessee paid Rs. 5,000 per month. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, ruling that the assessee was a protected tenant under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, which limited the rent to standard rent. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, the rent paid by the assessee was in excess of the standard rent, and thus no additional perquisite value could be added under Section 2(24)(iv). Conclusion: 1. Section 2(24)(iv) Applicability: The Tribunal confirmed that Section 2(24)(iv) applied to the transaction, as the assessee, a Director, obtained a benefit by purchasing the flat at a price lower than its market value. 2. Valuation of Benefit: The Tribunal determined that the benefit should be calculated based on the book value of the flat, resulting in the benefit being the difference between the book value and the purchase price. 3. Perquisite Value for Rent: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that no additional perquisite value could be added for the rent paid, as the rent was already in excess of the standard rent under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's appeal was partly allowed, modifying the CIT(A)'s valuation to the book value of the flat.
|
