9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... belonged to the appellant society and not with its members ? - Held that:- the issues arising herein stand concluded in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the revenue by the decisions of this Court in CIT Vs. Sambhaji Nagar Coop. Hsg.Society Ltd [2014 (12) TMI 1069 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Income Tax Appeal No. 1444 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 26-10-2015 - M. S. Sanklecha And G. S. Kulkarni, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d therefore, the right to construct additional built up area on the land belonged to the appellant society and not with its members ? b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that there is no cost of acquisition of TDR and thereby not subjecting the receipt of ₹ 10,41,00,000 to capital gain tax ? 3. It is agreed between the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer as well as CIT (Appeals) held the respondent-assessee to be a legal and beneficial owner of the land and hence sought to tax the consideration received on sale of TDR in the hands of the Society. It was the respondent-assessee which was aggrieved by the same and had contended before the Tribunal that the sale consideration of TDR was received by the individual member of the Society. The imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
