Menu
Capital gain case.
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 ?
Replies (3)
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.
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.
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.
Recent Topics :
- Wallet query for GST.
- 25-26 exempted sales
- Hotel stay below Rs.1000/- GST applicable or exemp
- NRI, ITR-2 FY 2025-26: AIS Part B2 (SFT) shows hig
- Generate E-Way Bill for 4 Nos. Suppliers Involveme
- Section 54F Exemption
- Would you use a free, open-source alternative to s
- Business & Finance
- Report in GSTR 1 ( Credit Note ) for Wrong GST Rat
- Reply of summons issued under section 70 of the cg
Related Topics :
CAclubindia
