1982 (4) TMI 127 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Computation of capital gain on the sale of land.
2. Dispute regarding the allowance of commission, development charges, and cost of land.
3. Capital gain computation on "Shamlat" land.
4. Calculation of annual letting value for a residential property.

Analysis:
1. The appeal involved the computation of capital gain on the sale of land by the assessee during the relevant accounting period. The original cost of the land, development charges, and commission paid for the sale were key components in determining the capital gain. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) calculated the capital gain using different values for the cost of land and development charges compared to the assessee's claims. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) upheld the ITO's decision regarding the computation of capital gain.

2. The dispute centered around the disallowance of the assessee's claim for commission, reduction in the value of land, and development charges. The assessee argued that the lower authorities were unjustified in disallowing the commission claim and reducing the value of the land and development charges. The assessee contended that the claim should be allowed based on the previous year's assessment. After considering the arguments, the tribunal confirmed the cost price of the land but accepted the assessee's claim for development charges and commission, directing the ITO to rework the capital gain accordingly.

3. The issue of capital gain computation on "Shamlat" land was raised, where it was established that the land did not belong to the assessee as an individual but was held as a share by the assessee as the Karta. The tribunal agreed that no capital gains arose in the hands of the assessee as an individual in this scenario, leading to the direction for deletion of the capital gains computed on the "Shamlat" land.

4. The final ground of dispute related to the calculation of the annual letting value (ALV) for a self-occupied residential property. The assessee had returned the ALV at a certain amount, but the ITO calculated a different value, leading to a higher percentage of the total income. The tribunal granted relief to the assessee based on the ALV at 10% of the total computed income, resulting in the partial allowance of the appeal.