9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue is directed against the order of CIT(A)- 35, Mumbai, passed on 08/01/2010 for the assessment year 1997-98 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The order of the CIT( A) is opposed to law and f acts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee was not holding any capital asset, ignoring the f act that the share of the assessee in the total FSI available to the CHS is the capital asset held by the assessee. 3. The ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the capital asset has not been sold exchanged or relinquished, ignoring the f act the assessee s share in the total FSI avail able to the CHS has been sold to the developer i.e. New India Construction Co. and the Hemandas J. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basis in the lands of coop. housing society, the share of compensation received by the assessee of Rs. 5,87,565/- was charged on protective basis. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). 3. Before the CIT(A), the assessee filed written submission and the contents of which had been extracted by the CIT(A) in his order at page 2. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the CIT(A) directed the AO not to charge capital gains tax on the compensation Hemandas J. Pariyani received by the assessee even on protective basis by holding as under:- On caref ully considering the f acts of the case as well as going through the orders of Hon ble ITAT particularly in the case of Deepak S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue is in appeal before us. 5. The learned DR has relied upon the order of AO whereas the learned counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on the order of CIT(A) and canvassed that the issue under consideration is covered by the decision of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Jethalal D. Mehta Vs. DCIT, [2005] 2 SOT 422 (Mum.) . 6. We have heard the learned representatives of the parties and perused the record. We find that the issue in dispute is covered by the decision of ITAT in the case of Jethalal Vs. DCIT (supra) wherein the ITAT held that transf erable development rights granted by the Development Control Regulations f or Greater Mumbai, 1991, qualif ying Hemandas J. Pariyani for equivalent f loor space index having no cost o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
