9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1072X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act itself, and without the expression of any right in therein i.e. land or building. Therefore, the precise use of one expression would exclude the other, a legal premise which is supported by the judgment of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of GVK Industries Ltd. Vs ITO [ 2011 (3) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT ] In our considered opinion, the point sought to be raised by the Ld. AR deserves to be upheld. Such a distinction also has found approval of CIT Vs Greenfield Hotels Estates Pvt. Ltd. [ 2016 (12) TMI 353 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] We find that the present transaction of transfer of leasehold right in question does not warrant invoking of section 50C(1) of the Act, as the property in question is not of the explicitly covered by secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion made be deleted. 4. The facts borne out the case records are; 4.1 The assessee is a resident individual and partner in certain firms carrying out businesses like manufacturing of C.I. casting, mobile, electrical goods, builders and developers etc., has for the AY 2014-15 filed his return of income [for short ITR ] declaring total income of ₹23,74,800/- with a claim of long term capital loss [for short LTCL ] of ₹34,20,711 arisen on transfer of immovable property consisting of land and villa. The ITR of the assessee was picked up for limited scrutiny through CASS regime by service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, wherein the Ld. AO pointing out the transfer of property at a value lower than the value adopted for sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which needs to be turn-downed. Per contra the learned departmental representative [for short DR ] strongly supported the orders of Ld. TAB tossing that the land building irrespective of whether leasehold or freehold falls with the ambit of section 50C, as it make no distinction while defining the class of assets falling within its purview, for this reasons the order of Ld. TAB deserves countenance. 6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties; and subject to the provisions of rule 18 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 [for short ITAT, Rules ] perused the material placed on records till the date of conclusive hearing and duly considered the facts of the case in the light of settled legal position and forewarne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ight in land or building. Thus, the expression land or building in its coverage is quite distinct from the expression any right in land or building. The legislature, in its wisdom, for the purpose of section 50C without referring to section 2(14) of the Act, has used the expression land or building or both in section 50C(1) of the Act itself, and without the expression of any right in therein i.e. land or building. Therefore, the precise use of one expression would exclude the other, a legal premise which is supported by the judgment of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of GVK Industries Ltd. Vs ITO reported in 4 SCC 36. 9. In this view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the point sought to be raised by the Ld. AR deserves to be up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
