9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 672 - AT - Income TaxComputation of capital gain - CIT(A) replacing the sale consideration to the stamp duty valuation invoking provisions of section 50C - Reference to DVO - CIT(A) considering the Cost of Acquisition of the Land as on 01.04.1981 and treating the Cost of Acquisition of the Development Right as on 01.04.1981 against sale value of entire Land - Held that - Respectfully following the case of CIT vs. Pooja Prints 2014 (1) TMI 764 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT we hold that no adjustment to the value as on 01.04.1981, as returned by the assessee, could be made with reference to the DVO's report dated 27.12.2012. The DVO's report dated 27.12.2012, in-as-much as it relates to the determination of FMV of land as on 01.04.1981, thus, could not be taken cognizance of; the reference in its respect to the DVO being bad in law. - Decided in favour of assessee. Whether the cost of acquisition to be set off is to be of the cost of land or of development rights therein - Held that - The sale value having crystallized (at ₹ 48.695 cr.), it is the value of the same asset, both quantitatively and qualitatively, value of which has been accepted, that, as on 01.04.1981, shall stand to be set off there-against in computing the LTCG arising to the assessee on its transfer. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Assessment of long term capital gains on the sale of development rights. 2. Validity of referring valuation to Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) under section 55A. 3. Consideration of fair market value (FMV) as on 01.04.1981. 4. Determination of cost of acquisition for capital asset. 5. Application of section 50C for valuation purposes. Issue 1: Assessment of long term capital gains The appeal was against the assessment order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2007-08, concerning long term capital gains (LTCG) on the sale of development rights. The Assessing Officer had deemed the stamp valuation as the full consideration received, which was contested by the assessee. The CIT(A) directed adoption of the valuation by the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) instead of the stamp valuation, leading to the appeal by the assessee. Issue 2: Validity of referring valuation to DVO under section 55A The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer had no legal authority to refer the determination of fair market value (FMV) as on 01.04.1981 to the DVO under section 55A. The argument was based on the requirement that such reference could only be made if the estimate by the registered valuer was lower than the FMV, as per a decision by the jurisdictional High Court. The Revenue supported the CIT(A)'s order based on the DVO's valuation. Issue 3: Consideration of FMV as on 01.04.1981 The Tribunal found that the reference to the DVO under section 55A was invalid as it was made before the date clarified by the High Court decision. However, the Tribunal considered the DVO's report as valid evidence for determining the FMV as on 01.04.1981, emphasizing the admissibility of expert opinions for assessment purposes. Issue 4: Determination of cost of acquisition The Tribunal clarified that the cost of acquisition for the capital asset had to be set off against the sale value, and it had to be for the same asset both on 01.04.1981 and the transfer date. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of considering the specific asset involved in the transaction for computing LTCG accurately. Issue 5: Application of section 50C for valuation The Tribunal noted that the application of section 50C, which is applicable to land and buildings, was accepted by the assessee. However, the Tribunal emphasized the need to consider the specific nature of the asset transferred, in this case, development rights, and not just the land itself, for accurate valuation and computation of LTCG. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, directing a reassessment based on the correct valuation principles and considerations of the specific assets involved in the transaction. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to legal procedures and expert opinions for accurate assessment of long term capital gains.
|
