9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... para 4 of the order of assessment, it appears to us that there is some merit in the averments of the learned A.R. However, we restore the matter for verification of the correctness of the assessee’s claim, that the AO’s computation of the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) at ₹ 2,56,495/- is incorrect and that correct working of the said disallowance by the assessee is ₹ 1,28,247/- as given at para 5.1 (supra). The AO is directed to verify the veracity of the assessee’s claim and workout the correct disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) after affording the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. - ITA No. 6204/Mum/2014 - - - Dated:- 17-8-2016 - Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accountant Member and Shri Sandeep Gosain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appals)-34 ( CIT(A)-34 ) has grossly erred in confirming the actions of the Assessing Officer of not granting the benefit of section 54F of the income-tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ). It is prayed that the learned Assessing Officer be directed to grant the benefit of section 54F of the Act to the Appellant. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-34 has erred in disallowing an amount of ₹ 2,56,495/- under section 14A of the Act. 3. The consequent interest and penalty demanded under section 271(1)(c) be dropped. It is prayed that the Learned Assessing Officer be directed to drop the penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unts thereof in an account duly notified by the central government before the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, i.e. in the case before 31.07.2008. Since the factual position remained that only ₹ 5 lakhs of the consideration was invested by the assessee towards the purchase of the flat upto 31.07.2008, the due date for filing the return of income for A.Y. 2008-09, the AO recomputed the LTCT of the assessee at ₹ 5,90,99,080/- after denying the assessee s claim for exemption of ₹ 5,75,77,693/- under section 54F of the Act. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) upheld the AO s action in denying the assessee exemption claimed under section 54F of the Act and in computing the LTCG at ₹ 5,90 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... covered, inter alia, by the following judicial pronouncements: - (i) CIT vs. M/s. Jagriti Agarwal (2011) 339 ITR 610 (P H) (ii) CIT vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2006) 296 ITR 374 (Gau) (iii) Anil Kumar Omkar Singh Aurora (ITA No. 4648/Mum/2013 dated 06.11.2013 (iv) Fatima Bai vs. ITO (2009) 32 DTR 243 (Kar HC) 4.2.2 It is prayed by the learned A.R. that since the assessee s case is squarely covered by the aforecited judicial pronouncements, the authorities below be directed to grant the assessee exemption claimed under section 54F of the Act. 4.3 Per contra, the learned D.R. for Revenue placed reliance on the decisions of the authorities below denying the assessee s claim for deduction under section 54F of the Act. 4.4.1 We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has to be considered for the purpose of utilization of the capital gains. 4.4.2 The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Jalan (supra) has held that if the assessee fulfils the conditions for availing the benefit of exemption under section 54 of the Act within the extended period for filing the return of income under section 139(4) of the Act, the assessee would be entitled to exemption under section 54 of the Act. We find that the Coordinate Benches of the ITAT Mumbai Benches, inter alia, in the cases of Kishore H. Galaiya vs. ITO (2012) 24 taxmann.com 11 (Mumbai ITAT) and Shri Anil Kumar Omkar Singh Aurora vs. ITO (ITA No. 4648/Mum/2013) have followed the aforecited decisions of the Hon'ble Punjab Haryana Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning and end of the relevant period has been wrongly taken at ₹ 5,12,99,131/- instead of ₹ 2,56,49,515/- (i.e. 0 + ₹ 5,12,99,131/2). Then the disallowance @0.5% thereof would be ₹ 1,28,247/- and not ₹ 2,56,495/- as computed by the authorities below. It is prayed that the authorities below be directed accordingly. 5.2 Per contra, the learned D.R. supported the orders of the authorities below. 5.3 We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused and carefully considered the material on record. From the working of the disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) made by the AO at para 4 of the order of assessment, it appears to us that there is some merit in the averments of the lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
