9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 642X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as claimed the indexation benefit from 2007. The departmental authorities have allowed indexation benefit from the date of transfer of ownership agreement by relying upon a decision of Gulshan Malik [ 2014 (3) TMI 474 - DELHI HIGH COURT] . The assessee has failed to bring on record any material or legal proposition to controvert the finding of the departmental authorities or to demonstrate inapplicability of the ratio laid down in case of Gulshan Malik vs. CIT (supra). Thus, in absence of any rebuttal by the assessee, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue. Grounds raised are dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not allowing indexation of the full value of property on the date of payment of EMI. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Assessing Officer was wrong, incorrect and unjustified in issuing penalty notice under section 271(1)(c). 5. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other." 3. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a non-resident individual. For the assessment year under dispute the assessee filed his return of income declaring income of Rs.2,16,680/-. In course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that in the year under consideration the assessee had sold an i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not the date of issue of the allotment letter. Accordingly, he held that for all payments made prior to 19.07.2010, the cost inflation index for financial year 2010-11 will apply. Thus, apportioning 50% of the cost of acquisition to assessee's share, the Assessing Officer computed long term capital gain at Rs.4,16,183/-. Further, as regards assessee's claim of deduction under section 54 of the Act, the Assessing Officer referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (284 ITR 323) held that such claim of the assessee not made in the return of income, cannot be allowed. Without prejudice, he observed that deduction under section 54 and 54F is available only in case the sale proceeds are used fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
