9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... share in the said property sold by assessee, her mother and 2 sisters. Merely because sale consideration was distributed amongst assessee her mother and 2 sisters, will not dissolve the right of widow of Late M.Murthy and her son Prakash - amount disbursed to these legal hairs is not clear from the sale agreement filed in the paper book. Under such circumstances we find it necessary to send back this issue to Ld. AO for verification in respect of share received by widow of Late M.Murthy and her son Prakash from sale price of land at measuring 1 acre 20.04 Gunta, bearing survey No. 81/2. We direct Ld. AO to call for these people to enquire upon amount disbursed to them and accordingly compute share received by assessee s before us for pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the case. 2 The Id. CIT(A) has erred in holding that a sum of ₹ 1,37,00,000/- being a part of the sale consideration is agreeable to tax in the hands of the Appellant without appreciating the fact that the Appellant was entitled to 1/6th share of the sale proceeds of ₹ 66,66,666/- attributable to her coparcenery share out of the total sale consideration of ₹ 4,00,00,000/-. ₹ 38,70,26O/ 3 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Appellant was not entitled for deduction admissible u/s. 54F(1 )(a) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the provision of section 4F(1)(b) needs to be read ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . ₹ 45,93,16O/- 3 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Appellant was not entitled for deduction admissible u/s. 54F(1 )(a) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the provision of section 4F(1)(b) needs to be read together and not in isolation. Same as above 4 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to gross up the consideration at ₹ 1,39,00,000/- by including TDS of ₹ 2,00,000/- as against ₹ 1,37,00,000/- being a part of the consideration as specified in the sale deed. Same as above 5 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holdi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction of residential property amounting to ₹ 16,44,772/- in the name of her son, and purchased agricultural land jointly with her sister Smt.Muniamma (assessee before us) amounting to ₹ 1,03,78,070/-. 6. Ld.AO, accordingly, rejected claim under section 54F and considered sale consideration in the hands of assessee s being 1/4th share of total sale consideration. 7. Aggrieved by additions made by Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A). 8. Ld.CIT(A) proceeded on the footing that, son of owners were never held it to be part of the property, and that the ownership of the land sold was held by assessee, her mother and 2 sisters. Ld.CIT(A) thus held that, assessee was entitled to 1/4th share being ₹ 1,37,00,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounds of appeal 2 and 3 of the appellant are dismissed. 10. In Respect of claim under section 54F, Ld.CIT(A) was of the opinion that, exemption cannot be granted to assessee as the property purchased was in the name of her son and investment was made in agricultural land. 11. Aggrieved by additions confirmed by Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us now. 12. At the outset Ld.AR submitted that, suit for partition in OS No. 369 of 2001 was filed in the Court of Additional City Civil Judge Bangalore, by Smt. Bhagya, daughter-in-law of late Narasimha Alias K.Muniyappa. It has been submitted that, Judgment and Decree was passed by Hon ble City Civil Court dated 29/05/2003, according to which, all legal hairs of late Narasimha Alia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ack this issue to Ld. AO for verification in respect of share received by widow of Late M.Murthy and her son Prakash from sale price of land at measuring 1 acre 20.04 Gunta, bearing survey No. 81/2. 17. We direct Ld. AO to call for these people to enquire upon amount disbursed to them and accordingly compute share received by assessee s before us for purposes of capital gains. Accordingly this issue raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. 18. In respect of claim under section 54F towards investment in property in the name of a son, we are of the opinion that, strict interpretation cannot be given to exemption provisions. As we have already remitted the issue in respect of sale consideration to be computed in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
