9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 600 - AT - Income TaxCapital gain on the assessee s share of built up area in the project executed under JDA - CIT(A) held that the sale consideration should be adopted - assessee himself has offered profit from sale of constructed area received at 3, 24, 85, 000/- on which tax was offered by assessee in the assessment years 2014-15 to 2016-17 - Held that - Since the CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue in the light of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ved Prakash Rakhra 2012 (10) TMI 286 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT and also the Apex Court in the case Balbir Singh Maini 2017 (10) TMI 323 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA we find no infirmity in his order as the guidance value of the property was of 20 lakhs and the assessee himself has offered the higher value i.e. 37, 60, 000/- to tax. Therefore we confirm the order of CIT(A). Accordingly the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Issues:
Deletion of addition of capital gain on the assessee's share of built-up area in a project executed under JDA by adopting the cost of construction, and the disagreement between the Revenue and the CIT(A) on the computation of sale consideration. Analysis: The appeal pertains to the deletion of the addition of capital gain on the assessee's share of built-up area in a project executed under a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) by adopting the cost of construction at a specific rate. Initially, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to re-examine the issue in light of relevant judgments, including the one concerning the right to receive income under a JDA. The CIT(A) concluded that the sale consideration should be based on the exchange value of the property, as per the guidance value, and not as determined by the Assessing Officer (AO). The CIT(A) considered the judgments of the jurisdictional High Court and the Apex Court, which emphasized the importance of fair market value in such transactions. The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision, arguing that the owner retained ownership rights and did not transfer rights akin to ownership to the developer, thus no transfer of profit or gain should arise. The assessee's counsel highlighted clauses in the JDA to demonstrate that possession remained with the assessee and referred to relevant judgments supporting their stance on the computation of capital gain. The assessee also pointed out that in subsequent years, profits from the sale of constructed areas were offered for taxation, further supporting their position. Upon careful examination, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had considered the relevant judgments and the guidance value of the property. Since the assessee had offered the higher value for tax, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal confirmed that the sale consideration should be based on the exchange value determined by the sub-registrar, as supported by the CIT(A)'s detailed analysis and the legal precedents cited. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the order of the CIT(A). In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough review of the facts, legal principles, and precedents related to the computation of capital gain under a JDA. The judgment emphasized the significance of fair market value and the exchange value of the property in determining the sale consideration, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.
|
