9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 670X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f computing capital gains - As submitted that there is substantial difference between cost of construction adopted for purpose of computing capital gains on sale of capital assets and expenditure booked by the developer in the course of construction activity - HELD THAT:- As perused decision of CIT vs. Ved Prakash Rakhra [ 2012 (10) TMI 286 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and note that, it squarely applies to present facts. Based upon the above observations by Hon ble Karnataka High Court, we do not find any merits in the issue raised by revenue. - ITA No.77/Bang/2017, ITA No.200/Bang/2017 - - - Dated:- 21-8-2020 - Shri A.K Garodia, Accountant Member And Smt. Beena Pillai, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Anil Kumar, C.A For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be charged at all under clause (3) of section 243B as the income computed u/s 143(1) is a loss. 4. The appellant prays it may be permitted to adduce any further evidence at the time of hearing of this appeal. ITA No.200/Bang/2017 1. The order of the Learned CIT(Appeals), in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, is opposed to law and the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that for the purpose of capital gain computation, value of land as on the date of JDA i.e., 5/10/2005 is to be taken and not the cost of construction of super built-up area to be received, as the Hon'ble ITAT Bangalore Bench 'A' in the case of N.S Nagaraj (JTA No. 676 ('B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee is in the business of manufacture and sale of allopathy medicines. 3. Ld.AO observed that, during the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration, assessee entered into joint development agreement with M/s Pratibha Realtors Pvt.Ltd., vide agreement dated 05/10/2005 and also executed a supplementary agreement dated 28/07/2008. Assessee accordingly handed over the possession of factory building duly converted into vacant land administering 84980 m . As per the agreement assessee was entitled to 1 lakh square feet of constructive commercial space in lieu of exchange of land at 50% and also additional space that assessee had agreed upon for reimbursing to the developer for seeking additional space area of 36% which wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the. The developer thereafter informed Ld.AO that, cost of construction has been accounted at ₹ 1700/- per square feet, and construction was stated to have been spread over for a period of 3 years. 8. Assessee filed various details and submitted vide letter dated 2/09/2013, stating manner in which, the developer handed over physical possession of constructed premises to assessee, and transferred 50% undivided interest in the land during accounting year ended on 31/03/2010 and as per section 50 C of the Act, the value of undivided right must be determined as per the guidance value fixed by the registration authority as the JDA entered was registered. 9. Ld.AO after going through the detailed submissions filed by assessee, wide l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et, submitted that Ld.CIT(A) has not decided issues in Ground 4, 6 and additional grounds raised before Ld.CIT(A). He thus requested for the issues to be sent back to Ld.CIT(A) for adjudication. 14. Ld.Sr.DR though objected for the request, however could not controvert that, these issues have not been decided by Ld.CIT (A). 15. In view of the above, and in interest of natural Justice, we direct Ld.CIT(A) to decide these issue on merits having regard to evidences filed by assessee. 16. Needless to say that, proper opportunity of being heard should be granted to assessee in accordance with law. 17. Ground No.3 raised by assessee is against the interest levied under section 234B of the Act. In our view this issue becomes consequent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
