9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of Rs.8,65,641/- and it has been brought into the notice of the first party who was convinced about the interior decoration. The payment made by the assessee has not been disputed by any of the lower authorities and payment was made to her husband and both are residing together. Assessee supports the case of the assessee. Accordingly, the expenditure incurred by the assessee for interior decoration is eligible to get the benefit of deduction u/s 54. - SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri Sudheendra B.R, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate Standing Counsel for Revenue ORDER PER SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... total sale consideration of Rs.1,40,00,000/- against which he had paid Rs.46,00,000/- as advance to the vendor. Accordingly, Mr. Hemansu M. Shah received Rs.46,00,000/- form Mrs. Sapna Shah and transfer the right in favour of the assessee. The assessee also submitted capital gain statement and the advance to the vendor was of Rs.46,00,000/-. Accordingly, the AO noticed that the claim of exemption on account of advance given for purchase of flats of Rs.54,65,641/- is not correct and only advance given of Rs.46,00,000/- were allowed and the excess claim of Rs.8,65,641/- by the assessee towards interior decoration were disallowed under the capital gain head and other disallowance was also made and completed the assessment. 3. Aggrieved from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e followings judgments:- 1) Rajat B Mehta in ITA No.19/Ahd/2016 2) Meher R Surti Vs. ITO [2013] 40 taxmann.com 138 (Mum Trib] 3) Mrs. Rahana Siraj Vs. CIT [2015] 58 taxmann.com 333 [Kar] 4) [2022[ 140 taxmann.com 441 [Bang. Trib] 6. On the other hand, the ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and strongly submitted the agreement made by the assessee for expenditure towards interiors of Rs.8,65,641/- is not genuine as observed by the ld.CIT(A). The assessee is also unable to produce any credible evidence towards expenditure incurred, therefore, the lower authorities are justified. 7. Considering the rival submissions, we note that the dispute is only towards interior decoration expenses as incurr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
