9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1055X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subsequently should be taken at the same price on which two flats were sold 20 days earlier. Thus, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of short-term-capital-gain of ₹ 3,04,238/- is deleted and sale consideration shown by the assessee as per the sale agreement of the two flats, viz. flat no. 303 and 304 is to be taken as such. - ITA No. : 4810/Mum/2014, ITA No. :5155/Mum/2015 - - - Dated:- 26-9-2016 - SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ K AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri Ajay Thakare, Shri A C Bohra For The Revenue : Shri C S Sharma ORDER PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: The aforesaid cross appeals has been filed by the assessee as well as by the revenue against impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and dates:- Flat No. Sale Price Rs. Date of Sale 305 36,50,000 24/06/2009 306 36,50,000 24/06/2009 303 35,00,000 14/07/2009 304 25,00,000 14/07/2009 The Assessing Officer observed that, the first two flats which were sold on 24.06.2009 to one party was sold at much higher figure, whereas, the other two flats sold after 20 days were sold at a lesser prices. If the areas of both the flats are by and large same, then how the assessee has sold the other two flats ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lat No.303 and 304 were sold at ₹ 35 lakhs and ₹ 25 lakhs and the Stamp duty value of these two flats were determined at ₹ 29,60,784/- and ₹ 24,51,382/- respectively. Thus, assessee has sold the flats more than the stamp value which is consonance with the deeming provision of section 50C, because the assessee had sold the property at a higher FMV stipulated under section 50C. Reasons for selling the other two flats at a lower price were that, these two flats lacked location/view advantage and also the assessee wanted to get rid of these flats from the said building as early as possible and, therefore, the sale was made at a comparable lower price. In any case, he submitted that, once the flats have been sold more tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 306 519 Sq. ft. 17.4.2005 17,50,000 24.06.2009 36,50,000 3 303 525 Sq. ft. 02.8.2006 29,60,784 14.07.2009 35,00,000 29,78,820 4 304 435 Sq. ft. 02.8.2006 24,51,312 14.07.2009 25,00,000 23,76,990 From the above, it can be seen that so far as two flats in dispute i.e. Flat No.303 and 304, the same have been sold at slightly higher price than the FMV assessed by the Stamp duty authority as per the stamp valuation. Thus, e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 7. Now, we will take-up revenue s appeal, vide which various grounds have been raised with regard , firstly, denial of benefit under section 54(1); secondly, addition of ₹ 3,04,328/- on account of Stamp duty valuation; and lastly, ₹ 5 lakhs on account of unsecured loans. 8. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel submitted that, the tax effect on the disputed issues raised in the grounds of appeal by the revenue is less than ₹ 10 lakhs. 9. Ld. DR also admitted that the tax effects on the disputed issues are below the prescribed monetary limit of ₹ 10 lakhs in light of the latest CBDT Circular No.21 of 2015. 10. Thus, in the wake of CBDT s Circular No. 21 of 2015 dated 10.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
