9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 280X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osite consideration. Having considered the case law of JCIT Vs. Rajesh Exports [2005 (11) TMI 362 - ITAT BANGALORE ] and in the absence of any other contrary decision in respect of a composite consideration, we are inclined to confirm the impugned order of the ld CIT(A). The ld DR has not assailed the factual position that the consideration paid was not a composite consideration, by pointing out any material so as to persuade us to come to a conclusion that there was bifurcation of consideration between land and building. Decided against revenue. - ITA No. 3297/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 23-12-2014 - Shri Pramod Kumar And Shri A. T. Varkey,JJ. For the Appellant : Vivek Aggarwal, CA For the Respondent : J. P. Chandraker, Sr. DR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on was of ₹ 8,74,483/- pertains to depreciation under the Head, plant and machinery, computer and furniture and fittings. 6. During the assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee claimed depreciation on whole of the price paid for acquiring of these office spaces on the ground that the office spaces on the 4th Floor were purchased from the builders in a multi-storeyed buildings wherein land is not separate and that the assessee had no right or claim on the land on which the building is situated. The AO did not agree with this claim of depreciation and in the light of there being no valuation report regarding the cost of construction etc. proceeded to disallow the entire claim of depreciation. 7. The AO sought informa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ionate ownership of land gets transferred to the assessee on purchase of commercial space. He submitted that the ld CIT(A) erred in holding that the Delhi Apartment Ownership Act is not effective, despite the fact that the same was passed by the Parliament and the Hon ble Delhi High Court has directed for implementation of the Act. On the other hand, the counsel for the assessee, contended as under:- The first submission is that the assessee has claimed depreciation on whole of the price paid for acquiring of the said office buildings on the ground that the office buildings were purchased from the builders in a multi-storeyed building wherein land is not separable. Therefore, the value of the construction and value of the land cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deration of the payment made/to be made by the SPACE BUYER to the DEVELOPERS and in the manner appearing hereinafter, the DEVELOPERS hereby agrees to transfer, convey and assign to the SPACE BUYER and the SPACE BUYER agrees to have and acquire the 'Said Premises' at the rate mentioned against it and upon the terms and conditions set out hereunder as mutually agreed by and between the parties hereto. Clause 7 of Agreement That it is made clear that what is to be sold is the space described above. The land underneath is leased out by the DDA and such lessee rights will ultimately be shared by the owners of various spaces including the Buyer herein through the medium of a society or any other appropriate body. Although no intere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the SPACE BUYER and the inclusion of the common areas in the computation does not give any interest therein as such to the SPACE BUYER, except as provided hereunder. clause 72 of the Agreement Pg17, In the event of an additional storey being permitted at any later time, such construction right shall belong to the Developers as distinct from Body/society/agency 12. From a perusal of the above terms of the agreement, we find that it is a composite agreement; and there is no separate consideration attributable specifically to the land. Therefore the issue is whether on purchase of commercial space for a composite consideration, the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on the composite consideration. This issue was conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lds good. Even under section 32 of the IT Act, 1961, the word used is 'building' and building is to be interpreted the superstructure. As far as the facts before us are concerned, though it is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for assessee that the purchase price of land was a composite one and for the sake of convenience, the price of land and price of building was separately shown, we are afraid that his contention can be accepted. As far as the Conveyance Deed is concerned, consideration paid by the assessee for land is shown separately. If the transaction was composite one, then no distinction at least in the consideration paid to the vendor would have been made. We are of the opinion that as there is a clear-cut identity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
