TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s provisions of Sec.50C would not be applicable to the transaction under consideration and therefore, the consequential addition made in the hands of the assessee, would not be sustainable in law - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 5644/Mum/2019 - - - Dated:- 30-8-2021 - HON BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM Assessee by : Shri Paresh Shaparia, Ld. AR Revenue by : Shri Bharat Andhale, Ld. Sr. DR ORDER Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-58, Mumbai [CIT(A)], order dated 30/07/2019 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ached by Learned CIT-A is erroneous and contrary to the provisions of the law. 4. On the facts and circumstance of the case the appellate the appellate prays that, the provision of section 50C of the Act cannot be invoked and the sale consideration disclosed in the agreement amounting to INR19,52,170/- needs to be considered for computing Long Term Capital Gain. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned CIT-A erred in confirming that the sale consideration for transfer of property be determined at INR 59,99,500/- by invoking the provision by section 50C of the Act. The appellant prays that Learned CIT-A has erred in determining the sale consideration at INR 55,99,500/- 6. On the facts and circumstances of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mbai for sale consideration of ₹ 19.52 Lacs which was offered to tax under the head apital Gains . The net sale consideration received by the assessee was ₹ 9 Lacs whereas the balance amount of ₹ 10.52 Lacs was directly paid by the purchaser to APMC (marketing committee) on behalf of assessee. It was noted that the property was used in earlier years for business purposes and the depreciation was being claimed as well as allowed on this property in those years. Therefore, Ld. AO opined that the gains would be short term in nature. The assessee submitted that the godown was used for business purposes from AYs 2001-02 to 2005-06 and its WDV as on 31/03/2005 was ₹ 12.76 Lacs. The assessee discontinued business activity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as rejected by Ld. AO since the word assessable was inserted in Sec.50C vide Finance Act, 2009 which was done to plug the loophole of persons not registering the sale documents to avoid the mischief of Sec.50C. Finally, Ld. AO substituted the agreed value with stamp duty value of ₹ 59.99 Lacs and re-worked capital gains which were to be treated as short-term in nature. 3.3 Before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee inter-alia pleaded that the provisions of Sec.50C would not be have any application in case of sale of leasehold rights. The said plea was rejected since the leaseholds rights would be capital assets to which the provisions of Sec.50C would apply. Therefore, the action of Ld.AO in adopting the stamp duty value was upheld. However, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. Interest to Partners 5.1 The assessee paid interest of ₹ 0.61 Lacs to the partners. The same was disallowed since the original partnership deed did not provide for payment of any such interest. The deed of addendum as executed by the assessee on simple unstamped paper was rejected. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the stand of Ld. AO since the only income in the Profit Loss Account was interest income. Whether interest was assessable as Business income was not established and therefore, the interest disallowance was confirmed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 5.2 Upon perusal of assessee s Profit Loss Account, it could be seen that the only credit to Profit Loss Account is Gain on Sale of Godown i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
