9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 844X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... while estimating 4% on book value of assets to determine deemed ALV, that those two properties are situated in slum area and also not in a posh area to estimate higher rental value. We further noted that the flat at MHADA, S.V.P.Nagar was not having necessary occupation certificate, because of this it cannot be let out for normal rental value. Likewise, the flat at Millat Nagar is surrounded by slum area and which was purchased at a cost of very nominal amount of ₹ 1,50,000/-. Therefore, he came to the conclusion that adopting 8% on book value of the property is higher rate and accordingly, reduced to 4% of books value. Facts remains unchanged, the revenue fails to bring on record any contrary evidences to counter the findings of facts recorded by the CIT(A). Hence, we are inclined to uphold findings of CIT(A) and reject ground taken by the revenue. Capital gain from sale of office premises - period of holding - date of allotment OR date of registration - HELD THAT:- When the property has been allotted and also, the assessee has made initial payment, the subsequent payment and registration of property is a follow up action and for the purpose of determination of period of ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red valuer, but search difference is less than 5% of the property and hence, the Ld. CIT(A) held that no reason to replace ready reckoner value in place of sale consideration actually received for sale of property. Fact remains unchanged. The revenue fails to bring on record any evidences to counter findings of facts recorded by the CIT(A). Hence, we are inclined to uphold the findings of Ld. CIT(A) and reject ground taken by the revenue. - SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee by : Mani Jain Revenue by : N. Padmanaban ORDER This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Mumbai, dated 15/03/2017 and it pertains to the Assessment Year 2013-14. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld, CIT(A}-was justified in holding that the assessee had used the Lonavala House Property for professional activity of script-writing and therefore, the said properly was out of the purview of section 23 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without appreciating that the assessee had never claimed the said property as b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3/2017 deleted additions made by the AO towards disallowances of expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income u/s 14A r.w.Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules, 1962, and also deleted additions made by the AO towards recomputation of capital gain from sale of property. However, allowed partial relief, in respect of deemed ALV of house property, by taking 4% of value of the property and also scaled down disallowances of expenditure to 15% of such expenditure. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before us. 3. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground no.1 and 2 of revenue appeal is additions towards deemed ALV of three house properties. The AO has computed ALV of house property at Lonawala, residential flat at MHADA, S.V.P. Nagar and residential flat at Millat Nagar, on the ground that the assessee ought to have computed deemed ALV, when he is using more than one house property for his own purpose and accordingly, determined ALV of three house properties, on the basis of value of the property shown in books of accounts and accordingly, estimated ALV at 8%, the books value of the property. While doing so, the AO has also rejected explanation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... noted that the flat at MHADA, S.V.P.Nagar was not having necessary occupation certificate, because of this it cannot be let out for normal rental value. Likewise, the flat at Millat Nagar is surrounded by slum area and which was purchased at a cost of very nominal amount of ₹ 1,50,000/-. Therefore, he came to the conclusion that adopting 8% on book value of the property is higher rate and accordingly, reduced to 4% of books value. Facts remains unchanged, the revenue fails to bring on record any contrary evidences to counter the findings of facts recorded by the CIT(A). Hence, we are inclined to uphold finings of Ld.CIT(A) and reject ground taken by the revenue. 6. The next issue that came up for our consideration from ground No. 3 and 4 is computation of capital gain from sale of office premises. The facts borne out from records indicates that the assessee has told office premises for a consideration of ₹ 1,60,00,000/-, whereas the market value of the property for the purpose of stamp duty was fixed at ₹ 2,57,46,500/-. Therefore, the AO called upon the assesee to furnish necessary details including documents to prove date of purchase and sale. In response, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment of stamp duty cannot be adopted in place of actual sale consideration received for the purpose of full value of consideration. 9. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. In respect of period of holding of an asset, the Ld.CIT(A) had recorded categorical findings in light of letter of allotment filed by the assessee, as per which, the developer has allotted the property by way of a letter of allotment dated 30/05/2006, and the assessee has made payment of ₹ 20,04,000/- for the financial year 2005-06, we further noted that when the property has been allotted and also, the assesse has made initial payment, the subsequent payment and registration of property is a follow up action and for the purpose of determination of period of holding, the date of allotment of the property by the developer should be considered. If date of allotment has been considered for the purpose of period of holding, then the property is held for more than 36 months and accordingly, the surplus from sale of property is assessable under the head long term capital gain. This legal proposition is supported by the decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
