Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: empanelment :: form 3cd :: VAT Audit :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: VAT RATES :: TDS :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: cpt :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: due date for vat payment :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD
 
 
From the Courts »
 Ravneet Takhar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ix And Ors.
 Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Formula One World Championship Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3 And Anr.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation-3 Delhi Vs. Formula One World Championship Ltd. And Anr.
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
 Ashok Prapann Sharma vs. CIT (Supreme Court)a
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21

DCIT Circ.9 Ahmedabad Vs. Shri Shekhar G.Patel L/h.of Late Shri Govindbhai C.Patel 2nd Floor, Municipal Bldg Patharkuva, Relief Road Ahmedabad
March, 26th 2014
          ,  Û `',  
          ,
      IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
     AHMEDABAD BENCH " D " BENCH, AHMEDABAD

    ¢ ^ ..,    ^   , Û  
    BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And
         SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER

               ./I.T.A. No.1997/Ahd/2010
         ( [ [ / Assessment Year : 2007-08)
 DCIT              / Shri Shekhar G.Patel
 Circ.9             Vs. L/h.of Late Shri Govindbhai
 Ahmedabad               C.Patel
                         2 n d Floor, Municipal Bldg
                         Patharkuva, Relief Road
                         Ahmedabad
     . /  . / PAN/GIR No. : AEHPP 8754 K
   ( /Appellant)    ..          (× / Respondent)

            / Appellant by        :   Shri Vimalendu Verma CIT-DR
         ×   /Respondent by :               Shri Dhiren Shah, AR

             / Date of Hearing       : 19/02/2014
             /Date of Pronouncement : 19/03/2014


                             / O R D E R

PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER :

      This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the
Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-XV, Ahmedabad (`CIT(A)'
for short) dated 13/04/2010 pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2007-
08. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

      1. The Ld.Commissioner of Income-tax(A)-XV, Ahmedabad has erred
         in law and on facts in holding that the rights held by the assessee
         were not `property' u/s.6(e) of the Transfer of Properties Act and
         not a `capital asset' as defined under the Income tax Act 1961.
                                                        ITA No.1997/Ahd/2010
                                               DCIT vs. Shri Shekhar G.Patel-
                                         (L/h.of Late Shri Govindbhai C.Patel)
                                                           Asst.Year ­ 2007-08
                                      -2-

       2. The Ld.Commissioner of Income-tax(A)-XV, Ahmedabad has erred
          in law and on facts in directing to deleting the addition of
          Rs.10,44,08,966/- made on account of long term capital gains
          earned by the assessee on receipt of compensation on
          relinquishment of right to obtain conveyance of land as per the
          agreement entered with the vendor companies.
       3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A)-
          XV, Ahmedabad ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing
          Officer.
       4. It is therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld.Commissioner of
          income-tax(A)-XV, Ahmedabad may be set aside and that of the
          Assessing officer be restored.


2.     Ground Nos.1 & 2 are inter-connected. Briefly stated facts are that
the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the
assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred
to as "the Act") was framed vide order dated 30.12.2009, thereby the
Assessing Officer(AO) made addition of Rs.10,44,08,966/- on account
of long term capital gain received as damages awarded under the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Against this, the assessee filed
an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions
and following the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court rendered in
the case of Baroda Cement and Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT reported at 53
CTR 260 :: 158 ITR 636 deleted the addition.


3.     The ld.CIT-DR reiterated the submissions as were made in the
statement of facts and submitted that the ld.CIT(A) was not justified in
deleting the addition. He submitted that ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate
the fact that right in a capital asset is a bundle of rights.
                                                      ITA No.1997/Ahd/2010
                                             DCIT vs. Shri Shekhar G.Patel-
                                       (L/h.of Late Shri Govindbhai C.Patel)
                                                         Asst.Year ­ 2007-08
                                    -3-

3.1.    On the contrary, ld.counsel for the assessee relied on the order of
the ld.CIT(A) and submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour
of assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of
Baroda Cement and Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) and decision of
Hon'ble Calcutta High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Ashoka
Marketing Ltd. (164 ITR 664). He also relied on the decision of Hon'ble
Gujarat High Court in the case of         CIT vs. Hiralal Manilal Mody
reported at 131 ITR 421 (Guj.).           He submitted that the Hon'ble
Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal (ITAT "B" Bench Ahmedabad) in
ITA No.1675/Ahd/2009 for AY 2005-06 titled as "Shri Govindbhai
C.Patel vs. DCIT" vide order dated 30/10/2009 has decided the issue in
favour of assessee. He also placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble
Delhi High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. J.Dalmia (149 ITR
215).       He submitted that before the AO, it was submitted that the
assessee and five companies; namely, Vibhor Reality (P) Ltd., Mandal
(Thaltej) Complex (P) Ltd., Gasvendu Land Developers (P) Ltd.,, Sanat
Complex (P) Ltd. and Shushna Complex (P) Ltd. are separate legal
entities.    He submitted that prior to conversion into Private Limited
Company, these five entities were Co-operative Societies with whom the
assessee had entered into an agreement for sale. He submitted that the
agreement for sale was executed way back in the year 2001.                     He
submitted that the companies failed to perform their part of contract,
therefore, a notice dated 10/09/2002 was issued to the said companies
for completing the sale of the lands in question. He submitted that when
the said companies did not execute the sale deed the assessee approached
to the arbitrator and the arbitration proceedings were initiated under the
                                                        ITA No.1997/Ahd/2010
                                               DCIT vs. Shri Shekhar G.Patel-
                                         (L/h.of Late Shri Govindbhai C.Patel)
                                                           Asst.Year ­ 2007-08
                                     -4-

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.             He submitted that the AO
erroneously observed that the assessee had no right to go to the Court,
therefore, he had no right to sue. He submitted that this is completely a
misinterpretation of the arbitration clause. He further submitted that the
assessee has only opted a forum other than civil court for enforcing his
right to sue.     He submitted that as per the settlement arrived at the
Ld.Arbitral Tribunal dated 03/10/2006, it was clearly stipulated in the
settlement that the assessee shall accept the amount in full and final
settlement for relinquishing the right to sue for the specific performance
of the agreement. He submitted that the damages were received only as a
compensation to extinguish the right to sue. He submitted that the law is
well settled that in a breach of contract what survive is only right to sue.
In support of this contention, he relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex
Court rendered in the case of Union of India vs. Raman Iron Foundry
AIR 1974 SC 1265. He submitted that the issue is squarely covered by
the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of
Baroda Cement and Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT(supra).


4.    We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material
available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below.
The contention of the Revenue as submitted by way of statement of facts
is reproduced as under:-
                              "Statement of facts
Reg:- Shri Shekhar G. Patel
L/H of Late Shri Govindbhai C Patel
A.Y:- 2007-08.
                                                            ITA No.1997/Ahd/2010
                                                   DCIT vs. Shri Shekhar G.Patel-
                                             (L/h.of Late Shri Govindbhai C.Patel)
                                                               Asst.Year ­ 2007-08
                                         -5-
In the case of the assessee, assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was made on 30.12.2009
determining the total income at Rs. 10,57,37,886/- as against returned income of Rs.
13,28,920/-.

During the assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee had entered into
agreements for purchase/sale for acquiring different piece of lands from the five
different companies as stated below:
From Vibhor Reality (P) Ltd.
From Mandal (Thaltej) Complex (P) Ltd.
From Gavendu Land Developers (P) Ltd.
From Sanat Complex (P) Ltd.
From Shushna Complex (P) Ltd.

The assessee had made part payment while entering into the agreement.
Subsequently, the said five companies breached the agreement for sale and did not
sell the land to the assessee. The companies had paid Rs. 10,44,15,000/- as
compensation/damages to the assessee for breach of agreement which was
consequent of right to sue of the assessee. Undoubtedly, the amounts received were
out of the agreements that the assessee had entered into earlier.

It is admitted fact that the assessee had earned Rs. 10,44,15,000/- out of aforesaid
transaction. Yet the assessee claimed that it would not be a gain taxable in his hands.
It was claimed that it did not constitute a capital asset which could be transferred
under the Transfer of Property Act as well as did not fall within the provisions of
section 2(14) r.w.s. 45 of the IT.Act. The assessee's claim and stand were rejected in
assessment and the amounts received by him from the transactions made, was taxed
as capital gain u/s 45 of the IT. Act. The facts of the case have been discussed
elaborately in the assessment order and for the sake of convenience the same is not
repeated here.




The Ld.CIT(A) has deleted the addition relying on the decision in the case of Baroda
Cement & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. CIT - 158 ITR 636 (Guj.) and held that compensation
received cannot be treated as consideration because 'right to sue' is not a property
under section 6(e) of the Property Act and thus did not become a capital asset under
section 2(14) of the I.T.Act. The CIT(A) has directed to delete the addition.

The legal position of the case with reference to definition of 'capital asset" u/s 2(14)
and 'transfer' u/s 2(47) of the I.T.Act has been very well laid in the assessment order
with reference to definition of "transfer' u/s 2(47) of the Act. Reliance was also
placed on the case of Sunil Sidharthbhai Vs. CIT 156 ITR 509 and the other
decisions in favour of Revenue have been relied.

It may be further noted that the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the true nature of the
receipts in the hands of the assessee. By entering into an agreement, for
sale(purchase) of land with the vendor companies the assessee had in fact acquired a
                                                            ITA No.1997/Ahd/2010
                                                   DCIT vs. Shri Shekhar G.Patel-
                                             (L/h.of Late Shri Govindbhai C.Patel)
                                                               Asst.Year ­ 2007-08
                                         -6-
right to have the immovable property conveyed to him which right was assignable,
had to be considered to be "property" and, therefore, a "capital asset" as held by
Bombay High Court in CIT v. Sterling Investment Corporation Ltd. [1980] 123 ITR
441.

Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Tata Services Ltd. [1980] 122
ITR 594 had further observed that a contract for the sale of land was capable of
specific performance and was assignable and in this behalf, relied upon the old
Madras High Court's judgment reported in Venkateswara Aiyar v. Kallor Illath
Raman Namubdhri, AIR 1917 Mad 358. It concluded that a right to obtain
conveyance of immovable property was property as contemplated by section 2(14) of
the Income-tax Act. The facts of the case in 122 ITR 594 were identical as that of the
assessee.
A similar issue also came up for discussion before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court
in the case of CIT v. Vijay flexible Containers [1990] 186 ITR 693 where in the the
question was answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. S. P.
Bharucha J. (as His Lordship then was a judge of the Bombay High Court and later
CJI) speaking for the Bench affirmed the view taken by the Bombay Bench in the
aforementioned two cases, i.e., Tata Services Ltd. [1980] 122 ITR 594 and Sterling
Investment Corporation Ltd; [1980] 123 ITR 441 (Bom). The learned judge after
examining the question in the context of the definition contained in section 2(14) and
section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act coupled with the provisions of the Transfer of
Property Act contained in section 6 and section 54 ibid and the cases relied upon
held as under (page 699):

"Having regard to the statutory provisions and the authorities which we have cited
above, we cannot, with respect, agree that the right acquired under an agreement to
purchase immovable property is a mere right to sue. The assessee acquired under the
said agreement for sale the right to have the immovable property conveyed to him.
He was, under the law, entitled to exercise that right not only against his vendors but
also against a transferee with notice or a gratuitous transferee. He could assign that
right. What he acquired under the said agreement for sale was, therefore, property
within the meaning of the Income-tax Act and, consequently, a capital asset. When he
filed the suit in this court against the vendors, he claimed specific performance of the
said agreement for sale by conveyance to him of the immovable property and, only in
the alternative, damages for breach of the agreement. A settlement was arrived at
when the suit reached hearing at which point of time the assessee gave up his right to
claim specific performance and took only damages. His giving up of the right to
claim specific performance by conveyance to him of the immovable property was a
relinquishment of a capital asset. There was, therefore, La transfer of a capital asset
within the meaning of the Income-tax Act. We may; at this stage, also deal with the
further argument that there was no consideration for the acquisition of the capita]
asset. In our view, this court was right in the view that it took that the payment of
earnest money under the agreement for sale was the cost of acquisition of the capital
asset."
                                                          ITA No.1997/Ahd/2010
                                                 DCIT vs. Shri Shekhar G.Patel-
                                           (L/h.of Late Shri Govindbhai C.Patel)
                                                             Asst.Year ­ 2007-08
                                        -7-

In view of the above discussion and looking to the facts of the case, the decision of
the Hon'ble CIT(A) is not acceptable and it is prayed that the order of the CIT(A)
be set aside and that of the Assessing officer be restored.

                                                                              Sd/-
                                                     Dy.CIT, Circle-9, Ahmedabad"
4.1.   We have to examine the rival contentions in the light of various
case-laws relied upon by the parties. We find that the AO relied on the
judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in support of his contention that the
definition of "transfer" u/s.2(47) of the Act is merely inclusive and does
not exhaust other kinds of transfer. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court, in this case, is not applicable as in the case of Sunil
Siddharthbhai vs. CIT (156 ITR 509), the Hon'ble Apex Court held
"When the assessee transferred his shares to the partnership-firm, he
received no consideration within the meaning of section 48 of the
Income-tax Act, 1961, nor did any profit or gain accrue to him for the
purpose of section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961".               The undisputed
facts in this case remain as noted by the authorities below that the
assessee had entered into agreements for purchase/sale for acquiring
different piece of           lands from the five different companies.
Subsequently, the said five companies breached the agreement for sale
and did not sell the land to the assessee. The said companies have paid
compensation/damages to the assessee for breach of agreement in
pursuance of the award made by the Arbitral Tribunal. The Assessing
Officer taxed the amount of compensation/damages as capital gain.
While doing so, the AO did not accept the contention of the assessee that
the case is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional
High Court rendered in the case of Baroda Cement and Chemicals Ltd.
                                                    ITA No.1997/Ahd/2010
                                           DCIT vs. Shri Shekhar G.Patel-
                                     (L/h.of Late Shri Govindbhai C.Patel)
                                                       Asst.Year ­ 2007-08
                                  -8-

vs. CIT(supra). The AO's reasoning for not following the judgement of
the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court is that the definition of transfer
u/s.2(47) of the Act is inclusive and, therefore, definition cannot be
imported from any other Act. The AO relied on the decision of Hon'ble
Madras High Court rendered in the case of K.R.Srinath vs. CIT (80 ITD
193).    However, the ld.CIT(A) following the decision of Hon'ble
Jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of Baroda Cement and
Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT(supra) allowed the appeal of the assessee. In the
case of Baroda Cement and Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT(supra), the assessee
had entered into an agreement with one M/s K.C.P. Ltd., Madras,
contracted to sell a second hand GHH Mill       Subsequently, the vendor
committed a breach of the contract by defaulting to sell the machinery to
the assessee-company.      The assessee and the vendor arrived at the
settlement and the assessee in that case received compensation. The
compensation so received was taxed by the A.O. The following question
had been referred to the Hon'ble High Court for its opinion:-
        "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the
        Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount received by
        the assessee-company by way of damages for breach of contract of
        sale of movable property was chargeable to tax under the head
        `Capital gains'?"

4.2.    The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court after examining various judicial
pronouncements at length observed that payment by way of
compensation or damages is distinct from consideration for complying
with the contract. The Hon'ble High Court after examining all aspects
answered the question against the Revenue.
                                                     ITA No.1997/Ahd/2010
                                            DCIT vs. Shri Shekhar G.Patel-
                                      (L/h.of Late Shri Govindbhai C.Patel)
                                                        Asst.Year ­ 2007-08
                                   -9-


4.3. The reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High
Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. J.Dalmia reported at 149 ITR 215.
The question before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court was whether, on the
facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs.1,02,500/- is
assessable as capital gains other than long term capital gains in the hands
of the assessee ?" The facts in that case were that M/s.Satish Kumar
Sood & Sons     were the owners of this property. They entered into an
agreement to sell with one Krishan Prasad. There was a default of
agreement and the dispute was referred to the Arbitral Tribunal. The
arbitrator gave his award amounting to Rs.1,02,500/- "as damages for
compensation for breach of the contract".     In his income-tax return the
assessee did not claim it as a capital gain.        The ITO rejected his
contention and the matter travelled upto the Tribunal and at the instance
of the Revenue the Tribunal referred the aforesaid question of law for
determination before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The Hon'ble Delhi
High Court observed as under:-

"We are to determine whether damages received by the assessee were in
respect of transfer of a `capital asset'. There was a breach of contract
and the assessee received damages in satisfaction thereof. He had a mere
right to sue for damages. Assuming the same to be `property' this could
not be transferred under s. 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act. The
relevant provision may be reproduced:

"6. Property of any kind may be transferred, except as otherwise
provided by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force:.....

(e) A mere right to sue cannot be transferred."
                                                       ITA No.1997/Ahd/2010
                                              DCIT vs. Shri Shekhar G.Patel-
                                        (L/h.of Late Shri Govindbhai C.Patel)
                                                          Asst.Year ­ 2007-08
                                    - 10 -

We do not find any exception under the IT Act though the word `transfer'
in relation to capital asset has been defined in s. 2(47) of the Act which
includes `sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset or the
extinguishment of any right therein'. The damages which were received
by the assessee cannot be said to be on account of relinquishment of any
of his assets or on account of extinguishment of his right of specific
performance under the contract for sale."

4.4.   The Hon'ble High Court further held as under:-

       "Under s. 5 of the Transfer of Property Act, `transfer of property'
       means an act by which a person conveys property to another and
       `to transfer property' is to perform such act. A mere right to sue
       may or may not be property but it certainly cannot be transferred.
       There cannot be any dispute with the proposition that in order that
       a receipt or accrual of income may attract the charge of tax on
       capital gains the sine qua non is that the receipt or accrual must
       have originated in a `transfer' within the meaning of s. 45 r/w s.
       2(47) of the Act. Since there could not be any transfer in the
       instant case, it has to be held that the amount of
       Rs.1,02,500/- received by the assessee as damages was not
       assessable as capital gains."

4.5.   We find that the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT
vs. Ashoka Marketing Ltd. (164 ITR 664) had formulated following two
questions:-

       "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the
       Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 1 lakh received
       by the assessee as damages from New Central Jute Mills Ltd. for non-
       performance of the agreement is neither a revenue receipt nor a short-
       term capital gains ?

       2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the
       Tribunal misdirected itself in law in holding that a sum of Rs. 1 lakh
       received by the assessee as damages for non- performance of the
       agreement was a capital receipt not liable to capital gains tax ?"
                                                        ITA No.1997/Ahd/2010
                                               DCIT vs. Shri Shekhar G.Patel-
                                         (L/h.of Late Shri Govindbhai C.Patel)
                                                           Asst.Year ­ 2007-08
                                     - 11 -

4.6.   The facts before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the above
case were that the contention of the Revenue that the sum of Rs. 1 lakh
which was received out of a contract by way of liquidated damages was
in the nature of a business transaction and it was thus a revenue receipt. It
was agreed in the agreement itself that if the transaction could not be
completed because of any fault on the part of the vendor, a specified
amount of liquidated damages to the tune of Rs. 1 lakh is to be paid to the
intending purchaser. The Hon'ble High Court decided both the questions
in favour of assessee.




4.7.   In the statement of facts, the Revenue has relied on the decision of
Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Tata Services Ltd.
(1980) 122 ITR 594. We find that this decision of the Hon'ble Bombay
High Court has been distinguished by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High
Court in the case of Baroda Cement and Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT(supra)
and held that this decision is, therefore, not an authority for the
proposition that payment of compensation or damages for breach of
contract would also attract the application of section 45 of the Act.
Further, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay
High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Vijay Flexible Containers
(1980) 186 ITR 693. We find that this decision is against the assessee.
The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held as under:-

       "We see, with respect, no convincing reasons to take a view other than
       that which has been taken by this Court in the cases of Tata Services
       Ltd. (1980) 122 ITR 594 and Sterling Investment Corporation Ltd.
       (1980) 123 ITR 441. We must hold, therefore, that the assessee acquired
       a capital asset by reason of the said agreement for sale, that there was a
                                                      ITA No.1997/Ahd/2010
                                             DCIT vs. Shri Shekhar G.Patel-
                                       (L/h.of Late Shri Govindbhai C.Patel)
                                                         Asst.Year ­ 2007-08
                                   - 12 -

      transfer of that capital asset when the assessee entered into consent
      terms and relinquished it, and that the capital asset had been acquired
      for the cost of Rs. 17,500 paid as and by way of earnest money under
      the said agreement for sale.

      The question that is posed asks whether the amount of Rs. 1,00,000 can
      be treated as a capital gain in the hands of the assessee. We find that
      the ITO had deducted from out of the total sum of Rs. 1,17,500 received
      by the assessee under the consent terms the amount of Rs. 17,500 as
      being the cost of acquisition of the asset and the sum of Rs. 17,904 on
      account of expenses and legal charges. The assessment was made by
      him, rightly, on the basis that the capital gain was of Rs. 82,086.
      Accordingly, we answer the question thus : the amount of Rs. 82,086
      shall be treated as a capital gain in the hands of the assessee."

5.    From the above case-laws cited by the respective parties, we find
that there is a divergent view of Hon'ble High Courts on this issue. The
Hon'ble Bombay High Court and Hon'ble Madras High Court are against
the assessee; whereas the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, Hon'ble
Delhi High Court and Hon'ble Calcutta High Court are in favour of
assessee. The law is well settled if there is two views are possible, the
view which is in favour of assessee is to be adopted. The Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Pradip J. Mehta v. CIT (2008) 300 ITR 231 (SC) has
held "It is well-settled that when two interpretations are possible, then
invariably, the court would adopt the interpretation which is in favour of
the taxpayer and against the Revenue". The Revenue has not placed on
record any judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court, whereby the ratio laid in
the judgements of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of
J.Dalmia(supra) and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Baroda Cement and
Chemicals Ltd.(supra) is overruled.         Therefore, respectfully following
the binding judgement of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the
                                                                                    ITA No.1997/Ahd/2010
                                                                           DCIT vs. Shri Shekhar G.Patel-
                                                                     (L/h.of Late Shri Govindbhai C.Patel)
                                                                                       Asst.Year ­ 2007-08
                                                              - 13 -

case of Baroda Cement and Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT (supra), we do not
find any infirmity in the order of ld.CIT(A), the same is hereby upheld.
Thus, ground Nos.1 & 2 of the Revenue's appeal is dismissed.
6.           Ground Nos.3 & 4 are general in nature require no independent
adjudication.
7.           In the result, Revenue's appeal stands dismissed.

       Order pronounced in Court on the date mentioned hereinabove at caption page


                         Sd/-                                                                            Sd/-
                   (..)                                                                           (  )
                                                                                                Û 
         ( N.S. SAINI )                                                                   ( KUL BHARAT )
      ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                                                                 JUDICIAL MEMBER
Ahmedabad;                      Dated              19/ 03/2014

.., .../T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS
    /
      Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1.          / The Appellant
2.         × / The Respondent.

3.             / Concerned CIT
           

4.          () / The CIT(A)-XV, Ahmedabad
            ,   ,  / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
5.
6.         [  / Guard file.

                                                                                                                        /
                                                                                                                   BY ORDER,

                        ×  //True Copy//

                                                                                         /
                                                                                         /  (                 Dy./Asstt.Registrar)
                                                                                     ,  / ITAT, Ahmedabad
                                                                                     ,
      1.     Date of dictation .. 27.2.14/ 3.3.14 (dictation-pad 25-pages attached at the end of this File)
      2.     Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member ......4.3.14
      3.     Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S.................
      4.     Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for
             pronouncement......
      5.     Date on which fair order placed before Other Member............
      6.     Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S...... 19.3.14.
      7.     Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk.....................19.3.14
      8.     Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk..........................................
      9.     The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature
             on the order..........................
     10.    Date of Despatch of the Order..................

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Software Work Flow Workflow Software Software Automation Workflow automation Software Design Workflow Design Business Work Flow Workflow automation tools

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions