2016 (11) TMI 1709

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal while deciding the identical issue in the case of Nand Lal Sharma [ 2015 (6) TMI 482 - ITAT JAIPUR] as relying on ASHOK KAPASIAWALA VERSUS THE ITO WARD-7 (1) , SURAT [ 2015 (10) TMI 2045 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] ,ASHOK KAPASIAWALA VERSUS THE ITO WARD-7 (1) , SURAT [ 2015 (10) TMI 2045 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] , SMT. VRINDA P. ISSAC [ 2012 (8) TMI 608 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] as decided in favour of assessee.
SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM For the Appellant : Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A) For the Respondent : Shri O.P. Bhateja (Addl. CIT) ORDER PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT (A)-I, Jaipur dated 17.11.2015 pertaining to assessment year 20 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ccount. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT (A), who after considering the submissions dismissed the appeal. 3. Now the assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal. 3.1. The only issue in this appeal is whether the assessee is entitled for deduction under section 54B at ₹ 1,60,00,000/- and deduction u/s 54F at ₹ 52,00,000/-. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is no more res integra, has been decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal as well as the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in favour of the assessee. He submitted that the ld. CIT (A) has wrongly applied the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of P.N. Khanna vs. CIT, 266 ITR 1 (SC). .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... turn i.e. 31.07.2011. It was observed that the assessee claimed that the entire sale consideration was deposited in the Nationalized Bank as well as in capital gain account. However, no documentary evidence was submitted to the AO. Therefore, the AO declined the claim of deduction under section 54F and similarly the claim u/s 54F of the Act. 3.5. It is contended by the assessee that since the investment is made before the due date of filing of return under section 139(4) of the Act and also before the date of filing of return on 21.02.2013, the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 54B & 54F even if he has not deposited the amount in capital gain account. In support of his contention, ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X