This is an interesting discussion that may reflect the different ways in which people learn accounting. One approach is through double-entry, so every transaction and event that needs to be reflected in the financial statements is thought of in terms of debits and credits. From that perspective, HeinekenTicket's analysis is, I believe, spot-on. We debit property, plant and equipment to reflect the upward revaluation of the building and credit comprehensive income to reflect the fact this this gain is regarded as a component of "other comprehensive income". Then, we debit comprehensive income by the amount of the revaluation and credit this to a component of equity called "revaluation surplus" (see IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment, para. 39), just as we debit comprehensive income by the amount of profit or loss and credit this to retained earnings. Because the comprehensive income is presented in the form of a statement rather than an account, we don't show these debits as part of the statement, but the corresponding credits are included in the statement of changes in equity.
Back in the days when accountants talked of the profit and loss account and the balance sheet, the profit and loss account was a component of the double-entry system, while the balance sheet was a classified summary of the balances remaining on the accounts in the double-entry system at the end of the accounting period. In those days, the profit and loss account would be debited with appropriations such as dividends payable to owners of equity capital and (in the case of group accounts) with the share of profits attributable to minority interests. The net balance would be credited (or, in the case of a deficit, debited) to retained earnings. Items such as revaluations bypassed the profit and loss account altogether. But, with the statement of comprehensive income, all items deemed to be income and expense are reflected in the statement. If we regard the statement as really no more than a form of presentation of a "comprehensive income account", then the revaluation surplus has to be credited to that account.
A lot of people nowadays don't really learn double-entry in the more traditional way. Instead, they are taught to examine how transactions and adjustments affect assets, liabilities and owner's equity, so there is a strong focus on the statement of financial position. This is consistent with the "balance sheet" approach of conceptual frameworks - income and expenses are seen conceptually as changes in assets and liabilities that represent changes in owners' equity (other than transactions with owners, so dividends paid to owners can't be debited in the statement of comprehensive income, because they are transactions with owners). So it becomes natural to think that a revaluation of an asset is no more than an increase in the amount at which the asset is stated together with an increase of equity, accounted for under the heading of revaluation surplus.
In terms of the question presented by lauma, it's important to note that this asks "how should the revaluation be recorded in the financial statements?" rather than "what are the accounting entries for the revaluation?"
"Financial statements" are defined in para. 10 of IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements as the statement of financial position, the statement of comprehensive income, the statement of changes in equity, the statement of cash flows, and notes (there's also a requirement for a restated statement of financial position when there's a retrospective change of accounting policy, a retrospective restatement, or a reclassification).
So an answer to lauma's question would state that the carrying value of the asset would be increased by the revaluation surplus (this would be reflected in the note relating to property, plant and equipment in compliance with IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment, paras. 73(e) and 77(f)), the increase is recognised in other comprehensive income, and the increase is accumulated in equity under the heading of revaluation surplus. This would be reported within the statement of changes in equity. The one financial statement that isn't affected is the statement of cash flows.