THE COMMONWEALTH TRUST INDIA LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE JTCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the assessee is liable for capital gains on the sale of land, as previously decided by the jurisdictional High Court. The fair market value as on 01.04.1981 was also confirmed.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed that capital gains on land sale should not be computed as the land was acquired free of cost. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) held the assessee liable for capital gains, following a Kerala High Court judgment.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee is liable for capital gains on the sale of land acquired free of cost and whether the fair market value as on 01.04.1981 was correctly determined.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM
Heard together (4 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Per George George K, JM :
These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against the consolidated order of the CIT(A) dated 21.12.2017. The relevant assessment years are 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. The assessee has also filed stay
ITA Nos.82-84/Coch/2018 2 SA No.23 & 24/Coch/2018. M/s.The Commonwealth Trust India Ltd. applications seeking to stay the recovery of outstanding tax arrears.
Common issues are raised in these appeals. Hence they were heard together and disposed of by this consolidated order.
Two issues are raised in all these appeals – (i) whether the assessee is liable for capital gain on sale of land at Olavakkode? (ii) whether the fair market value fixed as on 01.04.1991 at 269 per cent is correct?
We shall adjudicate the issues as under:-
Capital gain :
The Assessing Officer had held in the assessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T.Act for assessment years 2007-2008 to 2009-2010 that the assessee was liable to be assessed to Income-tax on capital gains arising from sale of land at Olavakkode. The assessee had claimed that the capital gains cannot be computed as the land was acquired by the assessee free of cost from British Company under the scheme of amalgamation.
Aggrieved by the assessments, the assessee preferred appeals to the first appellate authority. The learned CIT(A) following the judgment of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in assessee’s own case for assessment year 1991-1992 (ITA No.135 of 2000 judgment dated 08.04.2008) held that the assessee was liable for capital gains.
ITA Nos.82-84/Coch/2018 3 SA No.23 & 24/Coch/2018. M/s.The Commonwealth Trust India Ltd.
The assessee being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) has raised this issue before the Tribunal. The learned AR reiterated the submissions made before the Income-tax authorities. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, supported the orders of the A.O. and the CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in assessee’s own case for assessment year 1991-1992 in ITA No.135 of 2000 (judgment dated 08.04.2008) had held that the assessee was liable for capital gains in respect of sale of land at Olavakkode. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble High Court has been extracted at para 8 of the CIT(A)’s order, hence the same is not reiterated here. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court rejecting the assessee’s claim that it cannot be liable for capital gains as it had acquired this property free of cost, is rejected.
The next issue raised in all these appeals is with regard to the fair market value as on 01.04.1981 adopted at Rs.269 per cent of land. The assessee had claimed the fair market value as on 01.04.1981 at substantially higher, which was rejected by the A.O. and by the CIT(A). The relevant finding of the CIT(A) in this regard reads as follows:- “The Assessing Officer in his orders for all these three assessment years under consideration has adopted the value at Rs.269/- per cent of land which was based on the transaction reported from adjacent survey numbers. The Assessing Officer has adopted the higher value of transactions and I see no reason to disturb the values
ITA Nos.82-84/Coch/2018 4 SA No.23 & 24/Coch/2018. M/s.The Commonwealth Trust India Ltd. adopted by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, this ground is also decided against the appellant.”
Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has raised this issue before the Tribunal. The learned AR reiterated the submissions made before the Income-tax authorities. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, supported the orders of the A.O. and the CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The assessee has not produced any evidence / material to prove that the fair market value as on 01.04.1981 is more than Rs.269 per cent adopted by the A.O. Hence, we confirm the fair market value as on 01.04.1981 at Rs.269 per cent. Hence, this issue is decided against the assessee.
SA Nos.23 & 24/Coch/2018
Since the appeals are disposed off, the Stay Applications filed by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous.
In the result, the appeals as well as Stay Applications filed by the assessee are dismissed.
Order pronounced on this 04th day of February, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/- (Chandra Poojari) (George George K) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Cochin ; Dated : 04th February, 2019. Devdas*
ITA Nos.82-84/Coch/2018 5 SA No.23 & 24/Coch/2018. M/s.The Commonwealth Trust India Ltd. Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT (A), Kozhikode 4. The Pr.CIT, Kochi. 5. DR, ITAT, Cochin 6. Guard file.
BY ORDER,
(Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Cochin
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026