9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision of CIT v. Prithvi Brokers Shareholders (P.) Ltd [ 2012 (7) TMI 158 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and proceeded to examine the claim on merits. CIT(A) had extracted the details of investments made in the new two flats and held that two flats cannot be treated as one flat in view of the fact that they cannot be combined into single unit as they are located in different floors placing reliance on case of CIT vs. Devdas Naik[ 2014 (7) TMI 173 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] CIT(A) placing reliance on the decision of K.C. Kaushik [ 1990 (4) TMI 38 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s 54 only in respect of one flat and directed the Assessing Officer to exempt the cost of investment in one flat made before due da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , alter, amend or delete any or all of the above mentioned grounds of appeal. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are as under :- The appellant is an individual engaged in the business of trading of gold and silver jewellery. The Return of Income for the assessment year 2014-15 was filed on 24.12.2015 declaring total income of Rs.49,02,575/-. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the appellant sold a residential property situated at Mumbai for a consideration of Rs.2,33,00,000/- and the same was not returned in the return of income. However, the appellant had not offered any capital gains to tax when the query was raised by the Assessing Officer, during the course of assessment proceedings, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18-12-2013 RTGS HDFC Bank Limited 10,00,000 13-01-2014 TDS HDFC Bank Limited 10,00,000 14-02-2014 RTGS HDFC Bank Limited 20,000 09-05-2014 RTGS HDFC Bank Limited 20,00,000 08-07-2016 RTGS HDFC Bank Limited 13,42,725 05-08-2017 034831 HDFC Bank Limited 20,00,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 89,85,000 Note: Stamp Duty Registration charges paid on 28/3/2013 Rs.6,06,220/- The ld. CIT(A) considering the fact that the flat no.904 was not adjacent flats but located on the 9th 10th floor of the same building and impossibility of combining into one unit or does not have a common kitchen and held that the assessee is not entitled for deduction in respect of both the units placing reliance on the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Devdas Naik, 49 taxmann.com 30 (Bom.). The ld. CIT(A) further placing reliance on the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of K.C. Kaushik vs. ITO, 185 ITR 499 (Bom.) held that the appellant is entitled to claim of deduction o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hed the details of working of capital gains arising on sale of flat at Mumbai and claimed exemption u/s 54 of the Act. The same was negatived by the Assessing Officer on the ground that a claim which was not made in the return of income, cannot be made during the course of assessment proceedings. However, the ld. CIT(A) had entertained the additional claim u/s 54 placing reliance on the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Prithvi Brokers Shareholders (P.) Ltd., 349 ITR 336 (Bom.) and proceeded to examine the claim on merits. The ld. CIT(A) had extracted the details of investments made in the new two flats and held that two flats cannot be treated as one flat in view of the fact that they cannot be combined into ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
