Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 1895 - AT - Income TaxCapital gains from the sale of flats - Application of section 50C - property in this case is a lease hold property and has not been registered - HELD THAT:- The extant provision of section 50C were applicable to those properties which are registered. The properties which are not registered do not come under the ambit of section 50C. This position was changed by insertion of Finance Act, 2009 w.e.f. 1.10.2009 by which the word assessable was inserted in those cases where property has not been registered. Thus we find that provisions of section 50C are not applicable in the impugned assessment year. Furthermore, in the case of lease hold property which has not been registered, section 50C cannot be invoked. Furthermore, we note that Ld. CIT(A) has given a finding that the prevailing circle rate on the date of sale was ₹ 3000/- per sqft. Against this the assessee has adopted ₹ 3500 per sqft. Thus, AO has wrongly taken circle rate @ ₹ 4000/- per sqft. Which was applicable from the subsequent date. Accordingly, in the background of the aforesaid discussions and precedents, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A), hence, we uphold the same. Disallowance of maintenance charges receipt - CIT(A) noted that these maintenance receipts have been treated as business income from Asstt. Year 2001-02 as approved by ITAT - HELD THAT:- Assessee’s income from business in relationship to the maintenance and other service receipts as detailed above has not been disputed by the Revenue in earlier periods. The contracts are same which were there for earlier assessment years as well as for the impugned assessment year. In such circumstances, in our considered opinion, there is no change in the facts and law and hence, departure from earlier practice by the Revenue is not sustainable. This proposition is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dalmia Promoters & Developers P Ltd. [2006 (1) TMI 57 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. In this case it was expounded that for rejecting the view taken for earlier years, there must be change in facts, situation or law. We further place reliance upon the decision in the case of CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd.[2013 (10) TMI 324 - SUPREME COURT] held that when the Department has accepted the verdict of the Tribunal in some years, it cannot be allowed to challenge the verdict in other years. Thus, in our considered opinion in the background of the aforesaid discussion and precedents, there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we uphold the same. Appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed.
|