9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (4) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e following questions are referred by the Tribunal : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to the deduction of the sums of Rs. 43,107; Rs. 34,200; Rs. 60,000; Rs. 63,000 and Rs. 3,800 (in all aggregating to Rs. 2,04,107) as deduction in computing the capital gain on the sale of property belonging to the assessee at Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderaba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on a second appeal filed by the assessee, slashed down the disallowance to Rs. 2,22,107. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee sought reference of the questions referred to in the earlier paragraph. The total amount claimed as allowance is Rs. 2,04,107 which consists of Rs. 63,000 which was embezzled by the power of attorney holder who was entrusted with the job of selling the property, Rs. 43,107 b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... connected R. C. No. 30 of 1990 (Mrs. G. Y. Chenoy v. CIT [1998] 234 ITR 89 (AP)), we have held that the assessee is not entitled to the deduction of the said amount as she lost the amount in the capacity as an owner and not in the course of the transaction and it is also not incidental to the transaction. As regards the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards payment of the amount to the ten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erson who was assisting the agent of the assessee for selling the building, the assessee is not entitled to deduction.
In the light of the above, we answer the questions partly in the affirmative and partly in the negative, that is, partly in favour of the assessee and partly against the assessee.
The reference is answered accordingly.
X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
