9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 719X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... io of WDV of the fixed assets ie immovable & immovable assets. The agreement for sale was compositely made for all the assets, whereas the learned CIT (A) has valued the Land & Building as per section 50C & taken the FMV of Rs. 1,45,03,819/- and for movable assets the sales consideration is ARBITRORILY derived as Rs. 43,13,925/-. Please refer page No.22 & 26 of CIT (A) order. 2. By applying the provision of section 50C, CIT (A) has treated the capital gain on land & building worth Rs. 1,06,77,667/- as short term capital gain in spite of the fact that the learned CIT (A) has himself mentioned "that the assets were held for more than 36 months and the appellant needs to disclose LTCG", (para 2.4.3 on page no.14 of CIT (A) order) as the date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sraj Restaurant Pvt. Ltd for a sum of Rs. 1.35 Cr on slum sale basis and worked out the capital gains of Rs. 72,66,782/-, after adjusting the WDV of the entire block of assets of Rs. 62,33,218/- from the sale consideration of Rs. 1.35 Cr (sale consideration of Rs. 1,35,00,000 - Rs. WDV of Rs 62,33,218 = Rs. 72,66,782/-). Assessing Officer attempted to apply the provisions of section 50B relating to 'slump sale'. For the land and building, AO invoked the provisions of section 50C of the Act and worked out the short term capital gains out of said sale of land and building. Thus, AO computed the short term capital gains of Rs. 1,06,77,667/- on land and building and Rs. 22,09,224/- for other assets. The additions made by the AO, in brief, are a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; Water Filter and Bicycle. Para 2.4.13 of the impugned order is relevant in this regard. Finally, CIT (A) held that this is not a case of slump sale as mentioned in section 50B of the Act and dismissed the appeal of the assessee with enhancement u/s 251(2) of the Act and the manner of determining the short term capital gains at the back of the AO, which was given in page 26 & 27 of the impugned order and the relevant part of the same reads as under:- "In view of the above, I am convinced that the transfer includes entire 12 assets and not the 6 assets as proposed by the earlier. The contention of the appellant in this regard is accepted. Accordingly, the short term capital gain on the other assets is revoked as under:- The proposition of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f section 50C of the Act, provided, the allocation of the sale consideration among the assets was not done properly in a composite manner which is prima facie artificial and it should be rejected. 6. On the other hand, Ld DR fairly mentioned that so long as the assessee has no objection of invoking the provisions of section 50C, merely for re-allocation of the sale consideration among the assets, he will have no objection for a limited purpose of re-computation of the capital gains in accordance with the provisions of section 50C of the Act. 7. We have heard both the parties, perused the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the paper book filed before us. There is no dispute on the facts and figures that the sale consideration of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
