9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer is directed to allow the exemption u/s 54 of the Act as claimed before the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, the addition so made is directed to be deleted. Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. - ITA No. 2683/DEL/2017 - - - Dated:- 16-10-2017 - SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri Salil Agarwal Shri Shailesh Gupta, Advs For The Revenue : Shri T. Vasanthan Sr. DR ORDER This appeal of the assessee arises from the order of the ld. CIT(A), Faridabad vide order dated 22.11.2016 for A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has gros ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d addition needs to be deleted, as such. 1.3 That further, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the denial of full benefit of indexation on account of cost of improvement amounting to ₹ 25, 82, 368/- as claimed by the assessee - appellant, and in doing so, the learned CIT (A) has ignored the documentary evidences/ materials filed by assessee - appellant with respect to the said cost of improvements and thus, the addition so sustained by learned CIT (A) is based on extraneous and irrelevant considerations and should be deleted, as such. 1.4 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in placing reliance on the judgments which are wholly inap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nil Kumar, Accountant, AR, duly authorized on behalf of the assessee appeared for hearing from time to time and filed requisite information and documents which have been duly placed on record. The assessee has declared long term capital gain under the head income from long term capital gain of ₹ 3,31,471/- and interest income under the head income from other, sources of ₹ 84,249/- totaling to ₹ 4,15,720/-. Out of this assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80C 80D of ₹ 14,214/- and ₹ 5,648/- respectively leaving thereby taxable income of ₹ 3,95,858/-. The main issue involved in this case is that during the year under assessment assessee has sold a property for consideration of ₹ 77,25, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nother sum - of ₹ 1,00,000/- on 23.04.2007 to make the saleable because it was an old house and could not be sold as such therefore the sum of ₹ 1,25,000/- was spent on its renovation to make it saleable. Copy of pass book is at page no. 3 to 5. 5. The calculation of deduction/exemption u/s 54F is as per return Filed in your office copy of the computation is as page no. 6. The queries at point 2, 4 and 5 are having impact on computation of taxable capital gain and are discussed one by one. The cost value shown in the Wealth Tax Return and assessed by the AO represents the value as on last date of the financial year i.e. the value shown at ₹ 6,07,600/- in the wealth tax return for A.Y 2000-01 represents the cost of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ), and the assessee has, within a period of one year before or [two years] after the date on which the transfer took place purchased, or has within a period of three years after that date constructed, a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the new asset), the capital gain shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section, that is to say,- (a) if the cost of the new asset is not less than the net consideration in respect of the original asset, the whole of such capital gain shall not be charged under section 45; (b) if the cost of the new asset is less than the net consideration in respect of the original asset, so much of the capital gain as bears to the with capital gain the same p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30.4.2007 1,25000/- 1,32,033/- 25,82,367/- Say ₹ 25,82,368/-. The mistake, in fact, done by the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) is that the cost of acquisition as on 13.8.1986 and in the year 1990 amounting to ₹ 97,365/- and ₹ 5,10,235/- totaling to ₹ 6,07,600/- was taken to be the indexed cost of acquisition which, in fact, is not the case and the ld. DR could not controvert the same after the arguments of the ld. counsel for the assessee and after the query from the bench. In fact, the indexed cost of acquisition should be at ₹ 25,82,368/- and accordingly, the long term ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
