9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1709X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... puting the capital gain on sale of agricultural land by holding that benefit of investment made before the date of furnishing the return u/ 139(4) is not allowable unless the amount is deposited in capital gain account scheme within the due date of filing of return u/ 139(1). 1.1. The ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in wrongly relying on the decision of Cochin Bench of ITAT in case of ITO vs. Smt. Rosamma Korah, 45 taxmann.com and incorrectly distinguishing the decision of ITAT Jaipur Bench in case of Nandlal Sharma vs. ITO relied by assessee in disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 54B & 54F. 1.2. The ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in holding that deduction u/s 54F is not available on the expenditure of Rs. 5 lacs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he contrary, the ld. D/R has strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. 3.3. In rejoinder, the ld. Counsel reiterated the submissions as made in the written synopsis. 3.4. We have heard rival contentions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The undisputed facts as recorded by the AO are that the assessee had sold two properties i.e. land situated at Ramsinghpura, Tehsil Sanganer, Khasra Nos. 165 & 166, admeasuring 0.82 Hectare on 28.12.2010 to M/s. Krishna Balram Residency Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur jointly with his brother Shri Sedhu Ram at the consideration of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- and land situated at Ramsinghpura (Dholai), Tehsil Sanganer, Khasra No. 163, admeasuring 0.70 Hect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2013) 87 DTR 217 (P&H)(HC), CIT vs. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal (2011) 64 DTR 333 (P&H)(HC) and on the judgments of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fathima Bai vs. ITO (2009) 32 DTR 243 (Kar.)(HC) and in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Vrinda P. Issac (2011) 64 DTR 376 (Kar.)(HC) and also the decision of Coordinate Bench rendered in the case of Nipun Mehrotra vs. ACIT (2008) 110 ITD 520 (Bang.)(Trib.). 3.6. The Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal while deciding the identical issue in the case of Nand Lal Sharma vs. ITO (supra) has taken into consideration the various judgments of Hon'ble High Courts referred above. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal (supra), we allow the claim of the assessee. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
