9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 1100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ALESH, ADVOCATE J U D G M E N T The assessee sold the residential house in the assessing year 1996-1997 and the net capital gain from the same is ₹ 1,38,17,596/-. The assessee had entered into an agreement with one Sri.Surat Prasad for the purchase of property at Koramangala and had paid a sum of ₹ 20,00,000/- as advance. From out of the s ale realisation of the property sold, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and that the assessee would be entitled to exemption only under Section 54 and the exemption granted towards ₹ 20,00,000/- was disallowed. CIT appeals confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer, so also the Appellant Tribunal confirmed the rejection of exemption granted in respect of ₹ 20,00,000/-. However, under Section 5 4F granted partial relief to an extent of ₹ 6,67,493/ - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ? 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, the Appellant Tribunal has committed a mistake in declaring that the assessee is entitled to benefit under Section 54, but while computing the benefit has followed the Section 54F. Thus states that, it has resulted in wrong computation of the benefit under Section 54. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that, the Assessi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ires further investigation of the f acts by the Assessing Officer. 8. Keeping in view all the submissions made at the bar, the order of the Tribunal is set aside. Th e matter is remanded to Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The assessing Officer shall also keep in mind the decision of this Court in Fathima Bai Vs. Income Tax Officer reported in (2009) 32 DTR (Kar) 243 with respect of dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
