section 50C of the Act is a deeming fiction for substituting, adopting the valuation of land or building or both by the Stamp Valuation Authority as full value of consideration is applicable only in respect of "land or building or both'. If the capital asset under transfer cannot be described as 'land or building or both', then Section 50C of the Act cannot be attracted. From the facts of this case narrated above, it is seen that the assessee was allotted lease right in the unit for a period of 99 years, which right was further assigned to Shri Surya Prakash Lal in the year in question. Since in this case neither 'land or building or both' has been transferred Section 50C of the Act cannot be attracted. The distinction between a capital asset being 'land or building or both' and any 'right in land or building or both' is well recognized under the Act itself. My attention was drawn to Section 54D of the Act, which deals with certain cases in which capital gain on compulsory acquisition of land and building is charged. Sub-sec.(l) of sec. 54D opens with : "Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where the capital gain arises from the transfer by way of compulsory acquisition under any law of a capital asset, being land or building or any right in land or building, forming part of an industrial undertaking…." (emphasis given by me). It is palpable from Section 54D of the Act that 'land or building' is distinct from 'any right in land or building'. My attention was drawn to the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 also. Section 5(1) of the Wealth Tax Act at the material time provided for exemption in respect of certain assets. Clause (xxxii) of Section 5(1) of the Wealth Tax Act provided that "the value, as determined in the prescribed manner, of the interest of the assessee in the assets (not being any land or building or any rights in land or building or any asset referred to in any other clauses of this sub-section) forming part of an industrial undertaking" shall be exempt from tax. Thus it is noted that Parliament was aware of the distinction and has used differently between 'land or building' on one hand and 'or any rights in land or building' on the other. Here it is apt to apply the legal maximExpressio Unius Est Exclusio Alteriusmeaning Express mention of one implies the exclusion of another. [G.V.K. Industries Ltd.v.ITO,[2011] 4 SCC 36. Hon'ble Supreme Court 5 Member Constitution Bench] Considering the fact that we are dealing with special provision for full value of consideration in certain cases u/s.50C of the Act, which is a deeming provision, the fiction created in this section cannot be extended to any asset other than those specifically provided therein. As sec. 50C of the Act applies only to a capital asset, being land or building or both, it cannot be made applicable to lease rights in a land. As the assessee has transferred leasehold right for 99 years in the shop and not land itself, the provisions of sec. 50C of the Act cannot be invoked. I therefore, hold that the full value of consideration in the instant case be taken as Rs.1,25,92,000/-.