2007 (8) TMI 319 - HC - Income Tax

Cost of sale of properties computation of income - authorities below have given a finding that all the other benefits and amenities are commonly enjoyed by all the purchasers of flats/ shops in the complex and that, therefore, reducing such amounts for calculating the unit cost would not be proper or justified - rates at which the shops or offices or flats were sold in the complex were inclusive of the above amenities - findings given by the authorities below doesn t warrant interference

Summary

Issues:
1. Exclusion of cost of lifts, escalators, EPABX, etc., owned by a sister concern.
2. Computation of cost of swimming pool and proportionate cost of flats sold.

Issue 1 - Exclusion of cost of assets owned by a sister concern:
The High Court considered whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the Assessing Officer was not justified in excluding the cost of lifts, escalators, EPABX, etc., since these assets were not purchased by the assessee but owned by a sister concern. The assessee, a firm engaged in construction and sale of flats, claimed the cost of sale properties at Rs. 3,41,16,011. The Assessing Officer calculated the unit cost and adopted the cost of the area, adding back the difference to the total income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal reduced the addition, justifying that the amenities were commonly enjoyed by all purchasers, except for the swimming pool lease rent. The High Court upheld this decision, stating that reducing such amounts for calculating unit cost was not proper or justified, as the amenities were included in the sale prices.

Issue 2 - Computation of cost of swimming pool and proportionate cost of flats sold:
The second issue revolved around the computation of the cost of the swimming pool and the proportionate cost of flats sold. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) reduced the addition made by the Assessing Officer based on detailed analysis, confirming that only the swimming pool lease rent could be disallowed as it was not a common amenity. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that all other amenities were commonly enjoyed by purchasers and were factored into the sale prices. The High Court concurred with the lower authorities, stating that the findings were based on valid evidence and materials. As the Revenue did not appeal the earlier order regarding the same issue, the High Court dismissed the tax case, ruling in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the decisions of the lower authorities regarding the exclusion of the cost of assets owned by a sister concern and the computation of the cost of the swimming pool and proportionate cost of flats sold. The judgment favored the assessee, dismissing the tax case with no costs awarded.