9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 492X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perty for the purposes of capital gains, agreement to sell with part payment thereof is sufficient compliance. In this case as already noted, out of consideration of Rs.1.6 crores, assessee had already paid a substantial sum of Rs.1.10 crore at that time. Hence, in our considered opinion, the authorities below action to take circle rate of the year of registration is not sustainable and accordingly set aside the same. Claim of certain expenses relating to registration expenses as cost of improvement - AO had not allowed the same on the ground that no details were furnished before him - HELD THAT:- As assessee referred to his letter in the paper book to the AO wherein all the necessary details were furnished, interest of justice will be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Not appreciating the intention of bringing the beneficial Amendment (i.e. First Proviso to Sec. SOC), to provide statutory recognition to a principle which had been clearly adumbrated in Commercial Parlance i.e. a clarificatory beneficial amendment is applicable to all proceedings. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company sold an industrial lease hold property vide sale deed dated 13.05.2013 at a total sale consideration of Rs.1,60,00,000/-. The assessee claimed that it had entered into a registered agreement to sell with the vendee on 16.07.2012 and received the substantial part of sale consideration, that was Rs.1,10,00,000/- out of Rs.1,60,00,000/-. During the FY 2013-14 when the sale deed was executed the value as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year, that was 2012-13. Therefore, the provisions of 50C of the IT Act are squarely applicable in the case of the Assessee. I hold that the Assessing Officer has rightly taken the value of the property at Rs.2,01,92,400/-. The Appellant has claimed transfer expenses at the time of the purchase of the property and at the time of the sale of the property. The Assessing Officer, in the Assessment Order, has stated that the Assessee could not furnish evidences that the expenses were incurred by it. The facts remain the same even at the time of appellate proceedings before me. Therefore, the computation of capital gain made by the Assessing Officer is held to be correct. The Appellant has stated that the Assessing Officer has added Rs.82,96,820 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mprovement. AO had not allowed the same on the ground that no details were furnished before him. The noting of AO in this regard read as under :- In addition to this, the assessee has also claimed expenses for transfer charges for both sale and purchase of property. However, the assessee has not provided any proof to justify this expense. Vide order sheet entry 21.12.2016 the assessee was asked to explain why these expense may not be disallowed. The assessee failed to give a satisfactory reply. In view of this, the capital gain was calculated by the assessee. 7. Ld. CIT (A) has also confirmed the same on the ground that assessee has not furnished sufficient details. 8. However, ld. Counsel of the assessee referred to his lette ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
