Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . ITA 747/2007 . . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through : Ms. P.L. Bansal, Advocate. . versus . JITENDRA MOHAN ..... Respondent Through . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR . O R D E R 13.08.2007 1. The revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 3rd November, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C' in ITA No. 4327/D/2004 for the Assessment Year 2001-02. . . ITA 747/2007 Page 1 of 3 2. The question that the Revenue seeks to urge in this case is whether the sale of an industrial shed by the Assessee resulted in a short term capital gain or a long term capital gain. The Assessee was issued an allotment letter in respect of an industrial shed by DSIDC. This was sometime in 1994. The Assessee paid the first instalment immediately on allotment and paid the subsequent instalments over a period of time ending in 1997. On 18th May, 1998, the Assessee was put in possession of the industrial shed. The shed was thereafter sold by the Assessee on 15th December, 2000. 3. In view of this, the Assessing Officer held that the sale of the asset, that is, the shed resulted in a short term capital gain since the Assessee held the asset for less than 36 months. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) rejected the appeal of the Assessee against this conclusion. However, the Tribunal allowed the Assessee's further appeal on the ground that the Assessee was entitled to the asset from the date of allotment. It is against this decision that the Revenue has filed the present . appeal. . . ITA 747/2007 Page 2 of 3 4. Even if it is found that the view taken by the Tribunal is incorrect on the facts of this case, we are of the opinion that it will pertain only to a single Assessee and not constitute a general precedent. Therefore, the impugned order does not raise a substantial question of law. 5. We also find that the tax effect in this case is a little over Rs.1 lakh. It is well below the limit as to tax effect, as determined by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. 6. The appeal is dismissed. . . . MADAN B. LOKUR, J . . . S.MURALIDHAR, J AUGUST 13, 2007 sk . . . . ITA 747/2007 Page 3 of 3 .