9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 873X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments/evidence before the AO. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the old buildings standing thereon for the residue of the unexpired term of lease to the assessee Shri Dinesh C Shah By Deed of Assignment dated 25/02/1993, Shobhana Shailesh Mehta assigned her 1/4th undivided share in the Plot No 13 together with the old buildings standing thereon for the residue of the unexpired term of lease to the Smt. Hemlata Dinesh Shah, wife of the assessee Shri Dinesh C Shah. By the above Deeds of Assignment Shri Dinesh C Shah was assigned 3/4th undivided share in the Plot No 13 together with the old buildings standing thereon or the residue of the unexpired term of lease, while Smt. Hemlata Dinesh Shah was assigned 1/4th undivided share. 18/03/1993 The transfer of shares (earlier held by the transferors)in the Hatkesh CHS Ltd. was approved in favour of the assessee, Shri Dinesh C Shah and his wife, Smt. Hemlata Dinesh Shah Tenants surrender their tenancy rights and vacate the premises 2004 occupied in the old buildings 14/12/2006 Application made to the Society for redevelopment of the said Plot by construction of residential building [known as Raj Rahul] thereon. 02/03/2007 The Society accorded its approval/ NOC for redevelopment of the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal Gain (STCG) on assignment of Flat No. 201, 301 and 401 (three flats out of eight flats constructed) in Raj Rahul Building at ₹ 10,72,86,351/- against the LTCG of ₹ 9,62,06,609/- as claimed by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) held that land cannot be alienated from a building and if there is a sale of flat, it cannot be held that the entire consideration was received only for the super-structure and that no value could be attributed to the land on which the said superstructure was constructed. The AO has not doubted the purchase of leasehold rights by the assessee in the FY 1991-92. The AO has also allowed proportionate cost of buying tenancy of ₹ 35,00,000/- and ₹ 75,00,000/- in the FY 2004-05 and FY 2005-06 respectively. The Ld. CIT(A) thus observed that the AO has recognized that there existed a plot of land over which the assessee had lease hold rights and the said rights were further improved by acquiring tenancy in FY 2004-05 and FY 2005-06, based on which further construction was done in FYs 2008- 09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. The AO has not disputed the cost of constr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... capital gains. The Ld. DR further submits that the asset i.e. Raj Rahul Building (consisting of ground and podium with eight floors, each floor with one residential flat) is to be treated separately as a new asset, construction of which was completed as per Architect's Certificate dated 05.04.2010. Accordingly, the period of holding of the new asset is held as commencing within the financial year 2010-11. Thus, the assigning of the three floors to the assignees has to be treated as Short Term Capital Asset. Thus the Ld. DR submits that the AO has rightly computed the STCG of ₹ 10,72,86,351/-. 6. Per contra, the Ld. counsel of the assessee supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). It is submitted by him that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order on right appreciation of the facts and in the light of relevant decisions. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The reasons for our decision are given below. In case of property constructed on a site purchased much earlier, the question arises whether the period of holding the asset i.e., the property, should be reckoned from the date of completion of the construction of the propert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
