9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inging any corroborative evidence on record. If, the revenue alleges that the transaction was an adventure in the nature of trade then the onus was clearly upon them to justify their stand which the lower authorities have completely failed. On the contrary, the facts on record clearly show that the balance of convenience is tilted in favour of the assessee. Considering the fact of Automobiles Dealership with the sequence of events following since the award of dealership of MBIL in 1997, we have no hesitation to hold that the sale consideration has to be taxed under head capital gains and cannot treat the transaction as an adventure in the nature of trade. We, accordingly, set aside the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the A.O to treat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the disallowance of cost of improvement of ₹ 3412817 out of total claim of ₹ 47,47,534- made on the ground that signature of the recipient was not found for the brokerage paid and the appellant had failed to furnish any voucher /bill etc. to prove the claim of expenditure when in fact all the supporting were filed vide letter dt. 9-10-2014 AND 12-11-2014 and the appellant had deducted due Tax at Source from the payments so made, wherever applicable. [Rectification application filed with C.I.T.(Appeals)] It is submitted that the entire cost of improvement of ₹ 4747534 be allowed as a deduction after applying due indexation while working out taxable capital gains or ₹ 4747534 be allowed as a deduction while working out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant to which, the assessee resigned from the dealership on 27.02.2009. The resignation was accepted on 04.03.2009 and the assessee company resolved for the sale of the impugned land on 23.03.2011 and the sale deed was executed on 02.04.2011 for a consideration of ₹ 25,22,52,080/- 7. The revenue authorities were of the strong belief that the intention of the assessee when it purchased the impugned land was to make profit out of the sale of the same and, therefore, treated the entire transaction as an adventure in the nature of trade and taxed the surplus as income from business. 8. While doing so, the revenue authorities have completely ignored the fact that the assessee was never in the business of Real Estate. On the contrary, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ower authorities have completely failed. On the contrary, the facts on record clearly show that the balance of convenience is tilted in favour of the assessee. Considering the fact of Automobiles Dealership with the sequence of events following since the award of dealership of MBIL in 1997, we have no hesitation to hold that the sale consideration has to be taxed under head capital gains and cannot treat the transaction as an adventure in the nature of trade. We, accordingly, set aside the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the A.O to treat the surplus under the head capital gains as returned by the assessee. Ground no. 1 is accordingly allowed. 11. A perusal of the order of the First Appellate Authority shows that he has not adjudicate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
