9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 1203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst the order of the learned CIT(A)-III, Bangalore dated 20.1.2009. The relevant asst. year is 1998-99. The order of the CIT(A) emanates from the order of the Assessing Officer passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the I T Act. 2. The effective ground raised reads as follows:- The CIT(A) erred in deleting penalty of ₹ 9,54,080/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the I T Act on the basis of the order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.12,44,000/- in cash + ₹ 47,50,000/- in kind i.e. by way of 10 flats) on account of sale of property to a builder. Capital gains was worked out at ₹ 55,39,603/- after reducing the index cost of acquisition of ₹ 4,54,397/-. The assessee had claimed exemption u/s 54 amounting to ₹ 53,60,400/-. The balance of ₹ 1,79,000/- (Rs.55,39,603 ₹ 53,60,400) was offered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the view that there was no doubt that property consisted of land with structure... and further held that The deduction u/s 54 cannot be denied to the assessee on this ground . 4.1 The CIT(A) further held that deduction u/s 54 is to be allowed in respect of only one flat and not on all the 10 flats received by the assessee from the builder. Consequent to giving effect to the CIT(A)'s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 7.12.2007), deleted penalty levied by holding thus:- We have heard the rival submissions and perused the records. It is pertinent to note that in all the aforesaid returns filed, the learned DR pointed out that the assessee had offered income from house property namely, flats received by him from the developer and the same has been accepted by the department. Therefore, the assessee ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
