9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 622X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee, the ld. CIT(A) decided the issue in favour of the assessee. While doing so, the ld. CIT(A) has not given an opportunity to the Assessing Officer for filing remand report on the materials/ documentation brought on record afresh, which were considered by the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, the ground raised by the Revenue is allowed. Addition being LTCG short reported - Non verifying whether the conditions laid down in Proviso 1 and Proviso 2 to section 50C of the Act were satisfied or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai dated 28.12.2018 relevant to the assessment year 2013-14. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: 1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in giving relief to the assessee by deleting the disallowance of ₹ 44,22,711/- for AY 2013-14 ₹ 45,56,529/- for AY 2014-15 claimed under section 36( 1 )(iii) when the assessee company has not produced any evidence regarding the transaction for validating the claim that it arose out of a family settlement during FY 2007-08 during the assessment proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not giving opportunity to the AO under Rule 46A for verifying the claim of the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to its sister concern viz., Cholayil Products and Services to an extent of ₹ 2,99,68,284/-. Since the assessee has extended interest free loan to its sister concern on the secured borrowings for which the assessee has debited interest, the Assessing Officer worked out proportionate interest to be disallowed under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act at ₹ 44,22,711/- and brought to tax. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance. 3. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. DR submitted that during the course of appellate proceedings, by considering the submissions and evidence on the transaction for validating the claim that transaction arose out of a family settlement during the financial year 2007- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laid down in Proviso 1 and Proviso 2 to section 50C of the Act were satisfied or not by the assessee. On perusal of the records, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has sold four plots situated at Injambakkam for a consideration of ₹ 2.16 crores. The assessee has not registered the sale deed. Thus, the assessee was sought for to submit the guideline value adopted in the computation, which was submitted by the assessee as of and valid between 01.08.2007 to 31.03.2012 for the survey numbered plots for which the sales took place during the above period with the valuation ranging from ₹ 500 per sq. ft. to ₹ 750 sq.ft. However, after noticing from the website, the revised guideline values after 01.04.2012 @ ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. Vummudi Amarendran [2020] 120 taxmann.com 171 (Madras), wherein, the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court has held that amendment by insertion of proviso to section 50C(1) of the Act introduced with effect from 01.04.2017 which provides that where date of agreement, fixing amount of consideration and date of registration for transfer of capital assets are not same, value adopted or assessed or assessable by stamp valuation authority on date of agreement may be taken for purpose of computing full value of consideration for such transfer seeks to relieve the assessee from undue hardship and, thus, should be taken to be retrospectively effective. In view of the decision of the Hon ble Madras High Court, the Assessing Officer is directed to exa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
