Go AD-Free with CAclubindia Pro and Daily Mobile Updates. Subscribe Now!

Capital gain case.

Denesh Goyal (Advocate) (30 Points)

12 February 2014

Due to land restrictions, about purchase of property by non himachali, the assessee took advantage and stated to have sold only superstructure of a hotel property whereas he handed over the possession of entire land and superstructure. whether it is not a case of capital gain u/s 2 (47) of Act and is not a transfer ?

Reply
Follow
Share

3 Replies

Mihir (Wealth Manager) (5293 Points)
Replied 12 February 2014

Himachal Pradesh is such a state, like J&K, that no outsider can purchase a property. Selling a hotel, which is a building, will also amount to sale of capital asset, and will attract capital gain tax. One will also have to look at the wording in the sale agreement, as to who shall be liable to pay property tax for the land.

Denesh Goyal (Advocate) (30 Points)
Replied 12 February 2014

You are right. Infact I am Govt standing counsel for income tax department practicing at High Court Chandigarh and has very important case. Addition was made on the ground that it was a claver device to avoid the tax for which reason the assessee has shown purchase of only superstructure and paid tax on it wheras he refused to have purchase the land which seems to be not possible.

Mihir (Wealth Manager) (5293 Points)
Replied 13 February 2014

One will have to look at the sale agreement and then determine whether the assessee has actually purchased only the superstructure or also the rights and interest arising from the land.