9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (6) TMI 705 - AT - Income TaxTransfer of development rights - capital gains - held that - The right under the development agreement therefore is merely a contingent right depending on the grant of licence or approval as provided for in art. I of the agreement. It is only from the date of grant of licence from the DTCP the developer would actually be vested with the licence to develop the property. Prior to such development all approvals as enumerated in art. I of the agreement are to be obtained from DTCP and it is the responsibility of the developer to do so. It is only when the sanctioned plan and the approvals are obtained that the developer can commence the development on the scheduled property. - Decided in favor of assessee. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) - Assessee having appointed a consolidator to acquire land who as per the terms of MOU agreed to assign its right to purchase the land in favour of the assessee Held that - Vikram Electric Equipment (P) Ltd. was transacting on a principal to principal basis. Provisions of s. 194H of the Act are therefore not at all applicable - In favor of assessee. The provisions of s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act in any case do not apply the assessee having not claimed any deduction for any expenses on account of payment to Vikram Electric Equipment (P) Ltd. either in its P and L a/c or in the computation of taxable income filed.
Issues Involved:
1. Accrual of income on grant of development rights. 2. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for non-deduction of TDS on payments made to the consolidator. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Accrual of Income on Grant of Development Rights: The primary issue is whether the income of Rs. 58,03,59,600 accrued to the assessee on entering into the development agreement with the developer and from the effective date as defined in the agreement. The Department argued that the income accrued based on the development agreement dated 15th September 2006, which provided an exclusive license to the developer from the date of land purchase by the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the agreement heavily favored the developer, granting them extensive rights over the property, including the right to develop and sell without the assessee's consent. The AO concluded that the consideration of Rs. 2.25 crores per acre accrued to the assessee during the year since the property was acquired during the year itself, resulting in an addition of Rs. 58,03,59,600 as the assessee's income. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, reasoning that the development rights did not come into existence until the requisite license from the Director, Town and Country Planning (DTCP) was obtained. The CIT(A) emphasized that without the license, no development rights existed, and thus, no income could accrue. The CIT(A) relied on various judicial pronouncements, including the Supreme Court's rulings in E.D. Sassoon and Co. Ltd. vs. CIT and Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CWT, which clarified that income accrues only when the right to receive it becomes vested in the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the development rights were contingent upon obtaining the necessary approvals from DTCP. Since no such approvals were granted during the year, no development rights existed, and consequently, no income accrued to the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that the interest-free performance deposit received by the assessee did not represent part of the sale consideration for development rights. 2. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The second issue pertains to the disallowance of Rs. 4,20,15,681 (correct amount being Rs. 1,24,33,376) paid by the assessee to the consolidator for transfer of rights, under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS. The AO observed that the land price was inflated by the amount paid to the consolidator, M/s Vikram Electric Equipment (P) Ltd., and disallowed the amount out of purchases, reducing it from the closing stock. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action, holding that the consolidator was acting as an agent of the assessee, and thus, TDS under Section 194H was applicable. The assessee contended that the payment to the consolidator was for the transfer of certain rights in the land and not for services rendered. The assessee argued that the consolidator acted on a principal-to-principal basis, acquiring land from farmers and transferring it to the assessee. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, noting that the consolidator was transacting on a principal-to-principal basis, and the payment was not for services rendered. Consequently, the provisions of Section 194H were not applicable. The Tribunal also observed that the amount paid to the consolidator was duly reflected in the purchases and closing stock, with no sales made during the year. Therefore, no disallowance was warranted under Section 40(a)(ia), as the assessee had not claimed any deduction for the payment in its Profit and Loss account or the computation of taxable income. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition on account of accrued income from the grant of development rights. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not justified, as the payment to the consolidator was not subject to TDS under Section 194H.
|
