9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 710X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er years for the purpose of computation capital gains respectively. 2.1 The Ld.AR has brought on record that the issues raised in grounds no. 1 and 2 are due to the earlier year disallowances. However, the said disallowances in the earlier years have been deleted/allowed by the AO while giving effect to the order of the Tribunal providing relief to the assessee in the assessment years 2004-05, 2005- 06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. Since the issues agitated in the said grounds are consequential to the earlier disallowances and the same are settled as of now, the AO is directed to take cognizance of the matter and accordingly allow the claim after considering the said orders giving effect to the decisions of the Tribunal. Grounds No 1 & 2 are allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee but only lease hold rights over the land was given to M/s. Tool Craft in the year 1974. As the assessee got the ownership right in the said property only in the year 1992, the capital asset could be said to be held by the assessee only since 1991-92 and hence the AO was correct in adopting the indexed cost of acquisition on the basis of the year 1991-92. Aggrieved by the impugned decision, the assessee has raised this ground in the appeal before us. 3.2 Having heard both the sides and perused the material on record, it is pertinent to mention that vide agreement dated 07.08.1974, KIADB has given the impugned property to M/s. Tool Craft on lease for term of 11 years commencing from 1973 for a consideration of Rs.31,600/- and o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee has acquired the partnership firm in the year 1978 to which the title over the property in question has been improvised by conferring free hold rights, the year of acquisition of the said property is to be held as 1974 and not the year 1992. Therefore, the assessee is entitled for the indexed cost of acquisition since 1981 as claimed. We direct and order accordingly. Resultantly, Ground No. 3 is allowed. 4. In Ground No. 4, the assessee has agitated the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the decision of the AO in charging interest u/s 234A of the Act amounting to Rs.1,33,38,104/- by including the charging of interest on the self assessed tax paid of Rs.8,97,08,359/- before filing the return of income. 4.1 Briefly stated, the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... harged on assessed tax after reducing the amount of tax paid before filing the return of income. It is pertinent to mention that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Pranay Roy 309 ITR 231 (SC) has observed that the levy of interest under section 234A is compensatory and not penal in nature. The Tribunal, in the case of Sachin Vs DCIT 13 ITR (Trib) 161 has held that interest under section 234A should be charged after giving credit of tax already paid. Also, in the case of Epari Sadasiva Rao (HUF) Vs ACIT 18 ITR (Trib) 569, the Tribunal has held that interest under section 234A is only to be charged till date of payment of self-assessment tax, even though return has been filed later. After considering the facts in toto and appraising ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
