Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 1274 - ITAT DELHIShort Term Capital Gain on sale of property - assessee has not disclosed the expenses relating to sale of the above property - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- CIT(A) by erroneously relying upon the judgement cited as CIT Vs Hindustan Petroleum Ltd., (1974 (10) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court ) and CIT Vs Mithlesh Kumari, [1973 (2) TMI 11 - DELHI High Court -] extended the relief of interest paid by the assessee on the borrowed loan of ₹ 35,00,000/- used for the purchase of property in question by adding the same to the cost of acquisition, which is not permissible under law and the judgements cited as Hindustan Petroleum Ltd. and Mithlesh Kumari (supra) are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case cited as CIT Vs Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. (1997 (12) TMI 5 - SUPREME Court) discussed in preceding paras 8.3 and 8.4, held that the actual cost of acquisition is the amount paid by the assessee to acquire the asset which does not include the interest if any paid by the assessee on the loan borrowed for the purpose of purchasing such asset. So, in the light of undisputed facts and law discussed above, the cost of acquisition of property in question in the hands of the assessee as has been claimed by Shri Damodar Das Batra, father of the assessee one of the co-sharer in the property in question to the extent of 1/3rd share. So, Ld. CIT(A) has committed patent illegality by considering the cost of acquisition. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. - Decided in favour of revenue.
|