9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred in law and on facts by upholding the addition of Rs. 1,42,21,731/- made by the AO by applying notional capital gain, ignoring the submission of the assessee and without appreciating the fact that assessee received only part payment of Rs. 33,00,000/- and he has declared the long term capital gain on proportionate basis on the sale of this plot under consideration. 3. That the worthy CIT(A), Jalandhar has erred in law and on facts by upholding the action of AO of bringing to tax the notional capital gain amounting to Rs. 1,47,21,731/- on relying upon Joint Development Agreement which was not executed and sale as per that agreement was not complete. 4. That the worthy CIT(A), Jalandhar has erred in law and on facts by upholding the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/- and he has declared the long term capital gain on proportionate basis on the sale of this plot. Further, at that time only a part of the registry corresponding to the receipt of consideration of Rs. 33,00,000/- had been executed. But ignoring the submission of the assessee, the AO proceeded to compute the long term capital gain by taking full value of the consideration accrued to the assessee and wrongly made an addition of Rs. 1,47,21,731/- on account of difference in long term capital gain on notional basis. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the order of the Assessing officer. 4. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue in dispute is squarely covered by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orney dated 26.02.2007, it could not be held that the mandatory requirements of section 53A of the Transfer Act were complied with, which stood incorporated in section 2(47)(v) of the Act; that once that was so, it could not be said that the assessees were liable to capital gain tax in respect of the remaining land which was not transferred by them to the developer/builder because of supervising event and not on account of any volition on their part; and that viewed from another angle, it could not be said that any income chargeable to capital gains tax in respect of the remaining land had accrued or arisen to the assessee in the facts of the case. 7. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
