9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 959X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... questions of law:- (i) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in deleting the penalty when the assessee had not fully disclosed the accured capital gain and addition on this account had been upheld by ITAT and the Hon'ble High Court and the appeal was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court? (ii) Whether on the facts of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in deleting the penalty when the assessee had not fully disclosed the accrued capital gain and thereby furnishing inaccurate particulars of income? (iii) Whether on the facts of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in deleting the whole amount of penalty of Rs. 75,55,249/- levied by the AO in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 2(47) of the Act had taken place in the assessment year 2007-08, the entire amount of Rs. 3,67,50,000/- accuring on account of transfer of asset was chargeable to long term capital gain tax under Section 45 of the Act. In the return filed by the assessee, capital gain was declared only in respect of the sale consideration of Rs. 24,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer calculated capital gain on total consideration of Rs. 3,67,50,000/- and made addition of Rs. 3,59,52,559/- vide order under Section 143(3)/147 of the Act. Vide order dated 30.12.2011, it was held that the case fell within the ambit of Section 2(47) of the Act. A total consideration of Rs. 3,67,50,000/- was held to have accrued to the assessee during the assessment year 2007-08 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red by the assessee? After considering the relevant statutory provisions and the case law, the following conclusions were drawn:- "(1) Perusal of the JDA dated 25.02.2007 read with sale deeds dated 2.03.2007 and 25.04.2007 in respect of 3.08 acres and 4.62 acres respectively would reveal that the parties had agreed for pro-rata transfer of land. (2) No possession had been given by the transferor to the transferee of the entire land in part performance of JDA dated 25.02.2007 so as to fall within the domain of Section 53A of 1882 Act. (3) The possession delivered, if at all, was as a licencee for the development of the property and not in the capacity of a transferee. (4) Further Section 53A of 1882 Act, by incorporation, stood em ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
