2012 (10) TMI 526 - HC - Income Tax

Short-term capital gains deduction of liaison charges paid from STCG - sites, which were the subject matter of the sale, were in the occupation of slum dwellers - whether they were in occupation of all the sites or only those sites, which resulted in the short-term capital gains Held that - Assessee has paid the money by way of account payee cheque to one Mr. B.G. Koshy to clear the slum dwellers, which amount has been acknowledged by him - slum dwellers were in possession of the land, which resulted in short-term capital gains - no material on record to show that the said contention of the assessee is wrong, misleading or deliberately made with an intention to evade tax - laison charges refers to only short-term capital gains in favor of assessee

Summary

Issues:
- Disallowance of liaison charges against short-term capital gains only
- Apportionment of liaison charges between short-term and long-term capital gains
- Justification for apportionment by Assessing Authority
- Dispute over possession of land by slum dwellers

Analysis:
The High Court of Karnataka considered the issue of disallowance of liaison charges against short-term capital gains only, which was claimed by the assessee. The Assessing Authority had apportioned the liaison charges between short-term and long-term capital gains, leading to a dispute. The court noted that the total extent of land sold and consideration received was not disputed. The long-term capital gains were invested in REC bonds, while liaison charges were claimed for short-term gains. The court emphasized that the presence of slum dwellers on the land was crucial, and the dispute revolved around whether they occupied all sites or only those resulting in short-term gains. The payment for clearing slum dwellers was made to Mr. B.G. Koshy, acknowledged by him. The court found no evidence to suggest the assessee's contention was false or evasive. The Assessing Authority's assumption that all liaison charges applied to every site with slum dwellers lacked basis, as specific site numbers were mentioned in Mr. Koshy's bill. The court criticized the lack of contrary evidence from the department and upheld the appellate authorities' decision that liaison charges pertained only to short-term gains, dismissing the revenue's appeal.

The court addressed the justification provided by the Assessing Authority for apportioning liaison charges, emphasizing the lack of substance in the revenue's contention that slum dwellers were deliberately associated only with short-term gains. The court highlighted the importance of factual evidence, confirming the presence of slum dwellers on specific sites sold. The court found the revenue's argument lacking merit and supported the appellate authorities' decision based on documentary evidence provided by Mr. Koshy. The court emphasized the necessity of concrete evidence to challenge the assessee's claims and criticized the revenue's failure to provide substantial material to counter the assessee's position.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the revenue's appeal, stating that no substantial question of law merited admission. The court upheld the decisions of the appellate authorities, emphasizing the importance of factual evidence and proper consideration of documentation. The judgment highlighted the necessity of concrete proof to support claims and criticized the revenue for failing to provide substantial material to challenge the assessee's position.