9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d a finding of fact that during the subject Assessment Year, the respondent-asseseee had not sold any asset including any flat. The only sale which took place was of its shares by M/s. Calico Associates i.e. it shareholder. Thus, shares which carry its right to occupy the flats has already been subjected to tax in the hands of the shareholder. Thus, the concurrent findings of fact rendered by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal not being shown to be perverse and/or arbitrary, no interference is called for. The questions as raised before us in respect of impairment of land (use of FSI) was not canvassed before the Tribunal. Therefore, the question as raised does not arise out of the Tribunal's order. In any case, the finding of fact rendered by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... possible only by utilizing the FSI which meant impairment of asset of the assessee company? . 3. The respondent-assessee is engaged in the business of construction of building. It also owns land on which it constructed the building. Respondent-assessee is a non-profit making company, working on the principle of mutuality. It entitles its shareholders to occupy flats in building constructed by it on only recovering the cost of construction. During the year under consideration, one of the respondent-assessee's major shareholder M/s. Calico Associates sold its shares to a third party. This sale would entitle the new shareholder a right to occupy 67 flats in the building constructed by respondent-assessee. The transfer of shares b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'capital gain' in the hands of the shareholder for the subject Assessment Year. It also held that there is no sale of the land by the respondent-asseseee nor any sale of FSI available on the land which continues to be owned by the respondent-asseseee. In these circumstances, it allowed the respondent-asseseee's appeal. 5. Being aggrieved, the Revenue agitated the issue before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order held that the occupancy rights in the building constructed by the respondent-assessee were attached to the shares of the company for the benefit of the shareholders. In the present case, the shareholder M/s. Calico Associates had, in fact, transferred its shares and the consideration received by it had bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
