9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Computation of Long Term Capital Gains. 2. Applicability of Section 49(1)(iii)(a) regarding release deeds. 3. Classification of release deeds as gifts. 4. Calculation of indexed cost of acquisition. 5. Treatment of earnest money received. 6. Taxability of compensation received for unauthorized occupation. 7. Award of costs to the assessee. Summary: Issue 1: Computation of Long Term Capital Gains The case revolves around the computation of long-term capital gains on the sale of a property. The assessee initially reported a capital gain of Rs. 10,06,515 but revised it to NIL, claiming the indexed cost of acquisition and investments in NABARD Bonds u/s 54EC. Issue 2: Applicability of Section 49(1)(iii)(a) The CIT(A) held that the release deeds executed by co-owners were not covered under the meaning of devolution as per Section 49(1)(iii)(a) of the IT Act, 1961. The CIT(A) asserted that the asset was acquired by the assessee through release deeds by four different persons, and thus, the indexed cost should be calculated from the date of these deeds. Issue 3: Classification of Release Deeds as Gifts The assessee argued that the release deeds executed by co-owners amounted to a gift. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court decision in Kuppuswamy Chettiar Vs. ASPA Armugam Chettiar, which held that a transfer of property by a release deed without consideration is a gift. Therefore, the release deeds in favor of the assessee, executed out of love and affection, were considered as gifts. Issue 4: Calculation of Indexed Cost of Acquisition The Tribunal, referring to the Bombay High Court decision in CIT Vs. Manjula J. Saha, held that the indexed cost of acquisition should be computed with reference to the year in which the previous owner first held the asset. Thus, the cost of acquisition should be calculated by taking the value of the property as on 01-04-1981. Issue 5: Treatment of Earnest Money Received The CIT(A) reduced the cost of the asset by Rs. 40,000 received as earnest money by Late Mr. H.K. Mody, as per Section 51 of the IT Act. The Tribunal upheld this decision, stating that the earnest money has to be deducted from the cost of the asset while calculating the capital gain. Issue 6: Taxability of Compensation Received for Unauthorized Occupation The assessee received Rs. 12 lakhs as compensation for unauthorized occupation of the property. The Tribunal, citing the Special Bench decision in Narang Overseas Pvt. Ltd., held that mesne profits awarded as compensation for wrongful possession are capital receipts not chargeable to tax. Hence, this compensation was not taxable. Issue 7: Award of Costs to the Assessee The Tribunal found no merit in the ground relating to the award of costs to the assessee and dismissed this claim. Conclusion: The appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee on the issues of indexed cost of acquisition and the taxability of compensation received, while dismissing the claims regarding earnest money and the award of costs.
|
