9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment year 2009- 10 dated 30.12.2016 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 2. The first issue raised by assessee in this appeal is as regards to validity of re-assessment by way of ground nos. 2&3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that he is not pressing the issue of validity of re-opening of assessment and hence, the same is dismissed as withdrawn. 3. The second issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of the CIT(A) sustaining the addition made by Assessing Officer under the head 'income from other sources' being amount received as compensation for transferring the rights accrued in favour of the assessee. For this assessee has raised following ground nos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de registered sale deed vide document no. 394/2008-09, which includes the amount of Rs. 1,03,85,710/- as sale consideration and Rs. 1,46,14,290/- paid as compensation for transferring of rights accrued. The assessee claimed that the entire amount of Rs. 2.50 crores is sale consideration and hence liable for long term capital gains only. But the Assessing Officer after going through the recitals of sale deed and recitals of deed of nomination, both executed on 05.06.2008, noted that the compensation received by way of deed of nomination executed on 05.06.2008 is to be assessed as income from other sources. Hence, the Assessing Officer computed the income of the assessee by taking this compensation received at Rs. 1,46,14,290/- as income from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 394/2008-09 executed on 05.06.2008 and the relevant clause of sale deed categorically mentions the sale consideration at Rs. 1,03,85,710/- i.e., between the vendors namely (i) Smt. Indu Narayan Ubhaykar, wife of Sri. Narayan Devarao Ubhaykar, aged about 75 years (ii) Sri. Narendra Narayan Ubhaykar, son of Sri. Narayan Devarao Ubhaykar, aged about 51 years and (iii) Smt. Annapurna Shreedhar wife of Sri. G.A. Shreedhar, aged about 48 years, all are presently residing at "Sree Sadananda Nilaya" 480/24, 40th Cross 5th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore - 560 041 and vendee namely Mr. Manoharlal G Nichani, also known as G. Manu Nichani, S/o Late Giridharidas Nichani aged about 57 years, residing at No. 301, Chanakya Apartments 8th Main, RMV Extention, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... written hereunder together with undivided right, title, interest and ownership to an extent of 4057 /44000'hof the Schedule A' property which is more fully described in Schedule B written hereunder with all rights, easements and privileges and appurtenants thereto, TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same as absolute owner." 7. Further, we have seen from the deed of nomination executed on the same day on 05.06.2008 that as per Para 1 of this nomination deed there is a clear demarcation between the sale consideration of compensation received and the relevant clause reads as under: "The First Party hereby nominates the Second Party as buyer of the Schedule 'B & C' property for a total consideration of Rs. 1,03,85,710/- (Rupees One Cror ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is assessee has raised following ground nos. 5 & 6: "5. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the sustenance of computation/calculation of notional rent at Rs. 14,86,800/- for the units in number 103, 104, & 302 was wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect and not sustainable in law especially further in view of the ownership of the said units vested with another assessee/the husband of the deceased assessee. 6. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the sustenance of the notional rent adopted for other properties on various facets was wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect and not sustainable in law and went wrong in recording the findings in this regard from para 16 to para 19 of the impugned order without assigning prope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income, brought to tax under the head 'interest from other sources' in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification. 11. The CIT (Appeals) went wrong in recording the findings in this regard in para 21.1 of the impugned order without assigning proper reasons and justification." 12. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the Assessing Officer assessed the interest income of Rs. 15,40,914/- and when confronted to the assessee, he stated that income has been admitted, but this income is on account of assessee's spouse invested some of his funds in assessee name and assessee's husband has already included this income u/s. 64(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
