9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 544X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved by the landlord in view of Joint Development Agreement, instead of fair market value of the said asset on the dated of transfer - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that the issue of computation of capital gain has to be remanded to the AO for consideration de novo, in the light of the conclusion that the AO might arrive at in the case of assessment of the HUF on substantive basis. Without a substantive assessment, protective assessment will have no meaning. We make it clear that all the issues with regard to computation of capital gain viz., computation of full value of consideration received on transfer and deduction under section 54F of the Act will also be considered de novo by the AO depending on the outcome of proceedings in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee, his father and his brother as follows: Sy.No. 1. P.S. Vishwanathappa 6120 sq.ft. 33 2. P.V. Sumanth 1360 sq.ft. 34 34 3. P.V. Hemanth 1360 sq.ft. 35 35 Total 8840 sq.ft 5. On 10/04/2014, all the above joint owners entered into Joint Development Agreement with M/s. Dhammanagi Developers Pvt. Ltd. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11,11,610 8. The AO identified 3 issues that arose for consideration before him as follows: a. Whether the transaction involved results in capital gain in the hands of the assessee as one of the co-owner or his father Sri. P.S. Vishwanathappa as the kartha of HUF b. If the transaction involved results in capital gain in the hands of the assessee, what should be deemed sale consideration received or receivable by the assessee. c. If the transaction involved results in capital gain in the hands of the assessee, whether he is entitled for deduction u/s. 54F. 9. On the first issue, the AO came to the conclusion that the property in question was a joint family property and therefore capital gain shou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uction u/s. 54F to acquire any other residential property liable to be taxed under the head income from house property other than the new asset which is used for claiming the deduction u/s. 54F. In the case of the assessee, he has acquired another flat within the specified time than the one claimed deduction u/s. 54F. Hence, he is not eligible for deduction u/s. 54F of the I.T. Act, 1961. 10. Finally, the AO brought the capital gain computed by him in the hands of the assessee in his individual capacity protectively and reserved his right to tax the capital gain in the hands of the HUF on the substantive basis. 11. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not pass any order in the hands of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee, there was no substantive order preceding the protective order. On this aspect the order of CIT(A) is silent, had not expressed any opinion by speaking order. The learned counsel therefore prayed that the tribunal be pleased to set aside the assessee's case to the Assessing Officer with the direction to the Assessing Officer that Capital Gains should be computed at the rate of cost of construction of flats, on the assessee's share only and allow the exemption claimed by the Appellant u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned DR relied on the order of the CIT(A)/ 13. After hearing the rival submissions, we are of the view that the issue of computation of capital gain has to be remanded to the AO for considerati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
