GLOBAL HEALTH PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 10(1), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the cost of acquisition is allowable as the assessee parted with rights in the land. It further held that Section 45(2) is not applicable as the assessee is in the healthcare business, not real estate, and the conversion to stock-in-trade is the assessee's prerogative. Therefore, indexation should be allowed till the assessment year of the taxable event.
What were the facts?
The assessee entered into a Joint Development Agreement for 5 acres of land, opting for a cash consideration of Rs. 33 crores instead of built-up area upon project completion. The Assessing Officer disallowed the cost of acquisition, while the CIT(A) allowed it but restricted indexation till AY 2008-09, deeming the land converted to stock-in-trade.
What were the issues?
Whether cost of acquisition is allowable for land leased under a Joint Development Agreement, and whether indexation of cost should be restricted due to deemed conversion to stock-in-trade.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI
PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM: These cross appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue are against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, New Delhi {CIT (A)} vide order dated
22/05/2017 and are relating to Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. The issue involved in these appeals is related to computation of long
term capital gain arising from transaction of sale of rights as per
Joint Development Agreement (JDA).
0
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee was the owner of 43 acr
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 45(2)
- Amrendra Kumar, Delhi vs ITO Ward 23(3), DelhiITA 2937/DEL/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
- Prashasti Enterprises, Mumbai vs ACIT, Central Circle 8(4), MumbaiITA 6950/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed15 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
- Prashasti Enterprise, Mumbai vs ACIT, Central Circle 8(4), MumbaiITA 6949/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed15 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- DCIT-CC-8(4), Mumbai vs Prashasti Enterprise, MumbaiITA 6719/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed15 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- DCIT-CC-8(4), Mumbai vs Prashasti Enterprise, MumbaiITA 6718/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed15 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S South INDIA Trading Company vs. Additional Commissioner Adjudication CGST Delhi North & Anr.Delhi · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Rishi Stonex vs. The State Of Assam And 5 OthersGauhati · 13 Oct 2026
- Gopal Datt vs. Vishal Kumar SharmaUttarakhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Do Nam Enterprise And Anr vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 OrsGauhati · 13 Oct 2026
- M Sundaravel vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central GST And Central ExciseMadras · 13 Oct 2026