9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 368 - AT - Income TaxDetermination of ALP of a transaction Held that - In the present case it appears that the Assessing Officer has not given any basis while estimating the ALV at Rs. 24, 000/- and the learned CIT(A) after considering the order dated 03/03/2009 of his predecessor in the preceding year considered it fair and reasonable to restrict the ALV at Rs. 16, 000/- - No infirmity in the order of Comm(A). Exemption u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act - Long term capital gain amounting to Rs. 19, 00, 196/- exempted under section 10(38) of the Act - Assessee claimed long term capital gain exempted under section 10(38) of the Act - In the preceding year wherein the learned CIT(A) has allowed the exemption under section 10(38) of the Act vide order dated 03/03/2009 and the department has not preferred any appeal against the said order. Therefore to maintain consistency the department ought not to have filed the appeal for the year under consideration. On the identical issue the claim of the assessee was allowed in the preceding year by the learned CIT(A) and no appeal was preferred by the department against the said order. Therefore keeping in view the principles of consistency the department ought not to have filed the appeal for the year under consideration in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gopal Purohit reported in 2010 (1) TMI 7 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT wherein it has been held that there should be uniformity in treatment and consistency when facts and circumstances for different years were identical particularly in the case of the same assessee . Against the aforesaid order SLP filed by the department has been dismissed by the Hon ble Supreme Court Decided against the Revenue.
Issues:
1. Restriction of Annual Let-out Value (ALV) at Rs. 16,000 instead of Rs. 24,000. 2. Set-off of business loss claimed in proprietorship concern. 3. Treatment of long term capital gain as exempted under section 10(38) of the Act. Issue 1: Restriction of ALV The Assessing Officer estimated the ALV of a house property at Rs. 24,000, but the CIT(A) restricted it to Rs. 16,000 based on the previous year's assessment. The department appealed this decision. The tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not provide a basis for the higher ALV, and considering the precedent, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict it to Rs. 16,000. The appeal on this ground was dismissed. Issue 2: Set-off of Business Loss The department challenged the set-off of business loss claimed in a proprietorship concern. The tribunal noted that a similar issue was decided in favor of the assessee in a previous year. Citing precedents and the commencement of business in earlier years, the tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the set-off. The department's appeal on this ground was dismissed. Issue 3: Treatment of Long Term Capital Gain The dispute arose from the treatment of long term capital gain claimed as exempt under section 10(38) of the Act. The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim, following a precedent from a previous year. The tribunal emphasized consistency in treatment and cited relevant court decisions to support the CIT(A)'s decision. As the claim was allowed in the preceding year without appeal, the tribunal dismissed the department's appeal on this ground. In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the department's appeal on all grounds, emphasizing consistency in decisions and adherence to legal precedents. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering past rulings and maintaining uniformity in treatment across different assessment years for the same assessee.
|
