9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 1061X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has to necessarily incur expenditure to keep the land to a marketable condition. Under normal circumstances, this Tribunal would have remitted back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification. Since what was claimed was only ₹ 3,07,946/-, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that it may not be necessary to remit back the matter in view of the smallness of the amount claimed by the assessee. Accordingly, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the assessee would have spent ₹ 3,07,946/- as per the letter filed before the lower authorities with regard to improvements. Therefore, there is no justification in disallowing the claim of the assessee. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;![endif]--> <!--[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false EN-IN X-NONE <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]> ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;} <![endif]--> SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by : Ms. Hemalatha.K, ACA Respondent by : Sh.N. Madhavan, JCIT O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai, dated 23.01.2015, and pertains to assessment year 2010-11. 2. The first issue arises for consideration is with regard to disallowance of indexed cost of im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to the extent of ₹ 3,07,946/- is not justified. 4. On the contrary, Shri N. Madhavan, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee claimed improvements to the extent of ₹ 3,07,946/-. However, the Assessing Officer disallowed the same. The assessee had not produced any evidence before the lower authorities. The bills, vouchers, etc. for the improvement said to be made to the landed property were not produced before the Assessing Officer. The Ld. D.R. further submitted that a statement from Shri T. Karthik was recorded and he could not throw any light with regard to improvements said to be made by the assessee. The Ld. D.R. further submitted that what was sold by the assessee was a vacant land. Therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tances, this Tribunal would have remitted back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification. Since what was claimed was only ₹ 3,07,946/-, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that it may not be necessary to remit back the matter in view of the smallness of the amount claimed by the assessee. Accordingly, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the assessee would have spent ₹ 3,07,946/- as per the letter filed before the lower authorities with regard to improvements. Therefore, there is no justification in disallowing the claim of the assessee. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to allow the claim of the assessee towards cost o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by the Sub- Registrar for registering the document has to be taken. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that for the purpose of granting deduction under Section 54F of the Act, the value disclosed in the sale deed has to be adopted rather than the value determined by the Sub-Registrar on the basis of guideline value. Actual sale consideration as reflected in the sale deed has to be adopted in the absence of any other material to indicate that the assessee has received any on-money over and above the amount disclosed in the sale deed. In this case, it is nobody s case that the assessee received on-money over and above the sale consideration disclosed in the sale deed. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
