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

2025 (1) TMI 1343

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nged to the partnership firm only and the development rights was only notionally transferred by the assessee. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A), is upheld and the appeal of the revenue is rejected.
Shri TR Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member For the Revenue : Shri AP Singh, CIT. DR For the Assessee : Shri Vijay Patel, AR ORDER PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, AM: This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), Vadodara, dated 27.10.2023 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and partner in partnership firm namely M/s. Sumangal Reality Creators. The return of income for AY 2012-13 was filed on 29.02.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 6,09,610/-. Subsequently, the case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act on the basis of information received by the AO that the assessee had not disclosed capital gain to the extent of Rs. 3,89,25,000/-. It transpired that a land was purchased by the assessee along with Smt. Hemlataben N Parmar for a consideration of Rs. 1,45,75,000/- from Shri Rajendr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ghts to develop in her personal capacity, therefore liable to Short Term Capital Gain? 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in deleting the Short Term Capital Gain computed at Rs. 3,16,37,500/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee has nowhere been able to establish the reason/s of entering or using the name of Smt. Hemlataben N Parmar, a non-partner, or as to why the firm would assign the power of transfer, to a non-partner, in the impugned transaction? 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in deleting the Short Term Capital Gain computed at Rs. 3,16,37,500/- without appreciating the fact once the transaction has been established to have been undertaken by the assessee in her personal capacity, the resultant profit is liable to be taxed as Capital Gain? 4. The appellant craves leaves to add, modify, amend or alter any grounds of appeal at the time of, or before, the hearing of appeal. It is prayed that the order of the CIT(A) on the above issues be set-side and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 5. Shri A P Singh, Ld. CIT.DR appearing for the Revenue has meticulously .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the agricultural land was converted into non-agricultural land vide Govt. order dated 20.01.2011 and the amount of premium of Rs. 1.66 crores as determined by the Govt. authorities was paid by the partnership firm M/s. Sumangal Reality Creators. It was further explained that since the land was purchased in the name of two ladies, the development agreement had to be made with them in order to develop of project by partnership firm. Accordingly, the development agreement dated 23.12.2011 was entered into and other co-owner Smt. Hemlataben N Parmar was compensated for initial payment made by her husband to the land owner. As regards the assessee, there was no question of any compensation to her for the reason that the entire payment for purchase of land was made by the partnership firm and the assessee was only a name- lender. 7. As regarding the applicability of section 50C of the Act, the Ld. AR submitted that there was no transfer of land in the present case and the assessee had only assigned the development rights to the partnership firm. According to the Ld. AR, the provision of section 50C of the Act was not applicable in the case of assignment of development rights. In this r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at Rs. 2,41,75,000/- 6. Thereafter, by an agreement dated 23.11.2011, between M/s. Sumangal Reality Creators through its partner Shri Urmit Shah as first part and Smt Minal U Shah and Smt. Hemalataben Parmar (the land owners) as second part, the right in land in question was released in favor of M/s. Sumangal Reality Creators for development of the same as per the terms and conditions mentioned therein. Against this agreement, Smt. Hemalataben N Parmar has been given Rs. 50,00,000/- and four flats namely B/103, B/202, B/303, and A/501. The above consideration was payable from time to time after 1.9.2012 as per clause No. 1 of page No. 4 of the said development agreement. 9. It is thus found that Shri Narendrasingh Parmar, husband of Smt. Hemlataben N Parmar, had already paid Rs. 71,00,000/- to the land owner. Therefore, Smt. Hemlataben N Parmar was included as a co-owner while purchase of the same property by the partnership firm. When the partnership firm wanted to develop its project on the said land, the other co-owner had to be adequately compensated for the investment made by her family in the said land and the initial payment made to the land-owners. Therefore, the devel .....

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