9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 821X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oath, she had categorically confirmed that she had paid actual consideration of ₹ 37,92,600/- to the assessee in cash in three installments. This fact when confronted with the assessee, the assessee was not able to counter the same.A.O. adopted the sale consideration figure of ₹ 37,92,600/- as full value of consideration while computing the capital gains on transfer of land. This action was upheld by the learned CIT(A). We do not find any infirmity in the said action of learned CIT(A) upholding the Ld. A.O s order with regard to adoption of sale consideration. Cost of improvement - Claim made said sum was incurred by her towards cost of development and assessee had incurred this expenditure through a mason Shri C.Vasudevan. - A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice President And Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Mr. R. S. Balaji, Advocate And Mr. T. M. Subramanian, FCA For the Respondent : M/s. Vijayaprabha, JCIT, D.R ORDER PER M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The assessee filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Trichy in ITA No.332/2011-12/C.I.T(a)-1/TRY, dated 21.08.2019 for the assessment year 2008-09. 2. Though the assessee has raised several grounds before us, the effective issues that are to be decided by this Tribunal are as under:- a) Whether the sale consideration of ₹ 37,92,600/- on sale of land should be considered as against the actual sale consideration received in the sale of ₹ 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... full value of consideration while computing the capital gains on transfer of land. This action was upheld by the learned CIT(A). We do not find any infirmity in the said action of learned CIT(A) upholding the Ld. A.O s order with regard to adoption of sale consideration. 3.1 We find that the assessee had made a claim of ₹ 5 lakhs towards cost of improvement on the pretext that the said sum was incurred by her towards cost of development and assessee had incurred this expenditure through a mason Shri C.Vasudevan. The assessee had merely produced the receipt for payment of ₹ 5 akhs from Shri C.Vasudevan to substantiate her claim. The Ld. A.O disbelieved the same and further observed that the PAN and address of Shri C.Vasudevan wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of A.O. for afresh adjudication. 5. With regard to claim of exemption under Section 54F of the Act, we find that the assessee in instant case had reinvested in the new property in the name of her husband. We find that there is no dispute with regard to the fact of making reinvestment in new property. The only dispute is that reinvestment in new property has been made by the assessee in the name of her husband instead of in her name. This is a sole reason for denial of exemption under Section.54F of the Act. We find that the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of C.I.T Vs. V.Natarajan reported in 287 ITR 271 (Mad.), which has been heavily relied upon by Ld. A.R. before us, had held as under:- n the instant case, the assessee purc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
