Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (5) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2018 (5) TMI 1023 - AT - Income Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Direction by CIT(A) to compute long-term capital gain (LTCG) by taking the sale consideration of non-agricultural land at ?65 lakh.
2. Legitimacy of payments to M/s. Kwality Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Magnum Holdings Pvt. Ltd. under section 48(i) of the Income Tax Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Direction by CIT(A) to compute LTCG by taking the sale consideration of non-agricultural land at ?65 lakh:

The Revenue contested the CIT(A)'s direction to compute LTCG on the sale of non-agricultural land at Marve by considering the sale consideration at ?65,00,000. The Revenue argued that the assessee was the sole recipient of the entire sale consideration of ?1,50,00,000 and there was no sharing of the sale consideration with Mr. Pradeep Ravi Sood. The Assessing Officer (AO) had recomputed the LTCG without allowing deductions for payments made to M/s. Kwality Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Magnum Holdings Pvt. Ltd., considering these transactions as non-genuine.

2. Legitimacy of payments to M/s. Kwality Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Magnum Holdings Pvt. Ltd. under section 48(i) of the Income Tax Act:

The assessee claimed that payments of ?35,00,000 to M/s. Kwality Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd. and ?50,00,000 to M/s. Magnum Holdings Pvt. Ltd. were necessary as these entities had partial interest in the land, created by an agreement dated 14.05.1991. The AO disputed the genuineness of these agreements, stating they were not registered and were created to circumvent tax on LTCG. However, the CIT(A) allowed the appeal, observing that the payments were necessary for the transfer of the property and thus covered under section 48(i) of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

Facts and Background:

The assessee, along with co-owners, purchased the property in 1972 and sold it in 2009 for ?1,50,00,000. The assessee received the entire consideration and paid ?35,00,000 to M/s. Kwality Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd. and ?50,00,000 to M/s. Magnum Holdings Pvt. Ltd., claiming these payments were for their partial interest in the land. The AO recomputed LTCG without allowing these payments, considering the transactions non-genuine.

Appellate Proceedings:

The CIT(A) considered various contentions and documents, including the remand report, and concluded that the payments were necessary to effect the transfer of the property. The CIT(A) relied on judgments from the Bombay High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Shakuntala Kantilal and CIT vs. Abrar Alvi, which held that payments necessary to remove encumbrances for the transfer of property are deductible under section 48(i).

Judgment:

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, affirming that the payments to M/s. Kwality Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Magnum Holdings Pvt. Ltd. were necessary for the transfer of the property and thus deductible under section 48(i). The Tribunal found no illegality in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s direction to compute LTCG by taking the sale consideration at ?65,00,000, allowing the payments made to M/s. Kwality Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Magnum Holdings Pvt. Ltd. under section 48(i) of the Income Tax Act. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates