2019 (7) TMI 132 - HC - Income Tax

Computation of capital gains u/s 45(2) - expenditure incurred by the assessee for making a property free from encumbrances.- whether payment made by the purchaser to the escrow agent was cost of improvement ? - whether expenditure incurred for protecting, preserving and improving the title of land and hence the expenditure has to be allowed as part of the agreement by the then directors with Smt.P.Thillaikarasi, the assessee company had no liabilities? - HELD THAT - The matter concerned an expenditure incurred by the assessee for making a property free from encumbrances. CIT(A) took into consideration the factual aspects that the assessee had to pay a consideration of ₹ 5.5 Crore to one Smt.Tillaikarasi to clear an encumbrance which was created in her favour. Therefore, an amount of ₹ 2.75 Crore was paid to Mr.Vikram Mohan by the original shareholders of the assessee company Mr.K.Rajesh and Mrs.Srivalli. This was for the purpose of returning the original title deeds held by Mr.Vikram Mohan. Apart from that a sum of ₹ 2.74 Crore each was paid to Mr.K.Rajesh and Mrs.Srivalli outgoing shareholders. This expenditure incurred was held to be an eligible deduction for the purpose of preserving and protecting the title of the property. The factual aspect was tested by the Tribunal in great length and the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected. On going through contentions advanced before us, we find no question of law much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration in these appeals. For the above reasons these Tax Case Appeals are dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of order regarding acquisition of rights over shares and land.
2. Payment made to escrow agent and cost of improvement.
3. Expenditure incurred for protecting and preserving land title.
4. Allowability of interest expenses and bank charges.
5. Definition of cost of improvement under Section 55(1) of the IT Act.

Confirmation of Order Regarding Acquisition of Rights Over Shares and Land:
The Tax Case Appeals were filed challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the acquisition of rights over shares and land. The questions raised included whether the ITAT correctly confirmed the order of the CIT-A regarding the acquisition of rights over shares and land by GCIPL. The Tribunal analyzed the agreement and the payments made, ultimately rejecting the appeal filed by the Revenue.

Payment Made to Escrow Agent and Cost of Improvement:
Another issue raised was the payment made to the escrow agent and its classification as the cost of improvement. The ITAT held that the payment made by the purchaser to the escrow agent was considered a cost of improvement. The Tribunal examined the nature of the payment and its relation to the loan borrowed by one of the directors, ultimately dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

Expenditure Incurred for Protecting and Preserving Land Title:
The appeal also contested the expenditure incurred for protecting and preserving the title of the property. The CIT(A) allowed the expenditure as a deduction for preserving and protecting the property title. The Tribunal extensively reviewed the factual aspects and upheld the decision, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

Allowability of Interest Expenses and Bank Charges:
The issue of the allowability of interest expenses and bank charges was raised, questioning whether these expenses were related to the conversion of capital asset into stock-in-trade. The Tribunal concluded that the interest expenses and bank charges incurred by GCIPL were not related to the conversion of the capital asset, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal.

Definition of Cost of Improvement Under Section 55(1) of the IT Act:
Lastly, the question of whether the costs of improvements claimed by the assessee fell within the definition of cost of improvement under Section 55(1) of the IT Act was examined. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT-A regarding the costs of improvements, ultimately dismissing the Tax Case Appeals due to the absence of any substantial question of law.