TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 1162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax the rental income received from factory building under the head Income From House Property instead of under the head Income From Other Sources on the ground that income from the letting out has been accepted by the Department under section 22 in the past ignoring the fact that assessments for A.Y. 2000-01 and onwards have been reopened treating this income as Income From Other Sources and not as Income From House Property. 2. The first appellate authority, vide Paras-3.1 and 3.2 of his order, held as follows:- 3.1 Before me, the appellant has submitted that the Assessing Officer wrongly concluded that the lease rental received was from plant and machinery and furniture, as envisaged in sec. 56(2)(ii) (iii), I have peruse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that since A.Y. 1999-2000 this income is being assessed under the head Income From House Property. Hence, the Assessing Officer is directed to assessee lease rentals received under the head Income From House Property, after allowing deduction for municipal tax, and repairs. 3. Since both parties agree before us that in earlier assessment years, the Revenue has accepted the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the income in question is to be assessed under the head Income From House Property , we do not find any reason to disturb the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the principle of consistency. Consequently, ground no.1, raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 4. Grounds no.2 and 3, are inter-related, which read as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y building was sold in ₹ 23,75,000, to M/s. Mass Industries P. Ltd. and the Capt. Ali E. Pawaskar, was a confirming party. The issue in question is, whether or not the provisions of section 50C is attracted. 6. Commissioner (Appeals), at Page-6 / Paras-6.3 and 6.4 of his order, held as follows:- 6.3 I have perused the facts in this case. Shri Ali E. Pawaskar had taken one plot of land on lease from MIDC, vide agreement dated 4.2.1989, in Navi Mumbai. In the year 1992, a building was constructed, on this plot of land, for a consideration of ₹ 12 lakhs, and the amount was debited in the books of the proprietary concern, of Shri Pawaskar, namely M/s. Pawaskar Shipping Trading Co. In the year 1998 a private limited company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority is more than the fair market value, the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of the valuation officer. I have perused the appellant s submission made before the Assessing Officer dated 11.10.2006, wherein objection has been raised against adopting the stamp duty valuation. Hence, the Assessing Officer was duty bound to have referred the matter to the valuation officer. In view of the above facts, the Assessing Officer is directed to take the consideration, while computing the long term capital gain, at ₹ 23,75,000. 7. We do not find any infirmity in the aforesaid findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the same is hereby upheld. Even otherwise, section 50C, reads as follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that Act. [Explanation 1].-For the purposes of this section, Valuation Officer shall have the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957). [Explanation 2.-For the purposes of this section, the expression assessable means the price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, adopted or assessed, if it were referred to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to the previous owned u/s 49 and (iii) as the stamp duty value was higher than the consideration, s. 50C applied. On appeal to the Tribunal, HELD: (i) There were two distinct assets two distinct transactions. The first asset was the agricultural land which was acquired and in lieu of which the lease of the CIDCO plot was given. The gains from this were taxable in the year of allotment of the plot. The second asset was the leasehold rights in the plot which was assigned for ₹ 2.5 crores. The second asset, namely, the leasehold rights, cannot be categorized as agricultural land within the meaning of s. 2(14)(iii) and so the assessee was liable to capital gains; (ii) U/s 49(1), the cost of acquisition of an asset acquired by in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
