9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 788X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the A.Y 2010-11 against the order of the CIT (A)-6, Hyderabad, dated 5/2/2018. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Hyderabad, dismissing the appeal of the Appellant is perverse, illegal and unsustainable on facts and in law. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in sustaining the action of the Assessing Officer in bringing to tax the alleged capital gains in the A.Y under consideration. 3. Without prejudice, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in adopting the cost of land surrendered for development at ₹ 5.98 crores. The Commissioner (Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant A.Y. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A) who confirmed the order of the AO and the assessee is in second appeal before us by raising the above grounds of appeal. The learned Counsel for the assessee, while reiterating the submissions made before the authorities below, submitted that the case of the other co-owners had come up before the Tribunal in ITA Nos.1583 to 1592/Hyd/2017 and this Tribunal at para 8.1 has clearly held that the capital gains is chargeable to tax only in the A.Y 2003-04 as it was held that the actual transfer took place in the year 2003. Therefore, according to him, the capital gains cannot be brought to tax in the A.Y 2010-11. 3. The learned DR, on the other hand, supported the orders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... possession was handed over for development. But due to occupation of the property by the tenants, the developer was able to vacate the tenents only in the year 2003. Hence, it can be construed that the actual vacant possession was handed over to the developer only in 2003. Therefore, the actual transfer took place in the year 2003. The provisions of capital gains are attracted in the year 2003. Hence, the stand of the AO to charge the capital gains in the year 2010-11 is not proper. Secondly, the reason for bringing to tax in the year 2010-11 was the letter of the developer to announce that the building is ready for occupation without complying to the 'JDA' and approval norms. Even though the same was brought to the notice of the AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
