Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (8) TMI 934

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d alone and the matter consequently be placed before the concerned Tribunal for adjudication afresh. We consequently allow the instant appeal and set aside the order of the Tribunal. We leave all questions open to be addressed before the Tribunal afresh. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA For the Appellant Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, SSC along with Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, JSC and Mr. Gaurav Singh, Mr. Parth, Ms. Nupur, Ms. Muskan, Mr. Bhanukaran Singh, Advs. For the Respondent Through: Mr. Rohit Jain, Mr. Aniket D. Agrawal and Mr. Abhisek Singhvi, Advs. ORDER ITA 136/2021 1. The Principal Commissioner impugns the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ Tribunal ] dated 24 February 2020 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y the expenses? (5) Whether the impugned order passed by Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse both on law and facts? 2. Pursuant to the orders dated 17 August 2022 and 11 September 2023 passed during the pendency of this appeal, we are essentially left with the question of applicability of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ Act ] and of the multiplicative rate which was to be applied at the behest of the appellant. 3. We also take note of a cross-objection which has come to be preferred on behalf of the respondent assessee and which had sought to question the correctness of the view expressed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ CIT(A) ] on the applicability of Section 50C. 4. We note that while dealing with .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n of the appellant that where the property could not be registered due to any reason (here being in extended lal - doora) the transaction in relation thereto was outside the scope of Sec. 50C stands rejected. 4.02 The SECOND ISSUE , was as to in which category. whether G or H , the said property lay. As per the AO, It was in G category while as per the appellant it was in H category. The appellant furnished the copy of printouts from the' MCD authentic website for house tax purposes. As per the said website, the area of Samaypur village fell in H category and Shamaypur village in G category. 4.03 The appellant while filing the print outs from the MCD's authenticated website also pointed out that as per the sald website, there were t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that the appellant was discovered by it to be misusing the agricultural lands owned by it for other than agricultural purposes for which no permission or sanction of or notice to the appropriate authority was given by the appellant. Until and unless by the delegated or subordinate legislation such misuse of lands was subjected to suitable levy by the Delhi government, the multiplicative factor was to be taken as applicable for the lands as appearing in the revenue records of the state government. So long as the revenue records held the lands of the appellant as agricultural, there could be no dispute about the character of the land, which in the Instant case was agricultural. As a corollary of the above the multiplicative factor in the case .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in the Asstt. Order. This issue of category has been dleat with in detail above holding that category G is attracted in the instant case. The AO in RR proposed that STCG should be charged on sale of building portion on the ground that the depreciation was claimed, which brought into play Sec 50. The appellant filed the copy of depreciation chart claiming that no depreciation was charged on the building ever in the past. This fact was apparent from the depreciation chart also. Since, the depreciation was not charged, therefore, STCG on sale of building portion was not legal. In result the prayer of AO for enhancement stands rejected. 5. When the matter reached the Tribunal, these issues were cursorily disposed of with it being observed as f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates