9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of Shri. M.G. Vasan, husband of the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10 and determined the rental value at Rs. 3 lakhs. AO accordingly assessed the proportionate income from these three units at Rs. 2.01 lakhs as against offered by assessee s husband at Rs. 1,78,125/-. We noted that the estimation made by the Assessing Officer in assessee s husband case can be adopted here also and we direct that the same rate be adopted for assessee, also can be assessed notional rent at Rs. 2.01 lakhs in assessee s case and accordingly, this ground of assessee is partly allowed. Addition being the interest income, brought to tax under the head 'interest from other sources' - HELD THAT:- AO assessed the interest income 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)(iv) of the Act being clubbing provision, but when confronted the assessee neither before the AO nor before the CIT(A) could produce any evidences. Even now before us, simply bald statement was made but no evidence whatsoever was pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the findings in this regard in para 20.2 para 20.3 of the impugned order without assigning proper reasons and justification. 9. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the computation of Long Term Capital Gains on various facets excluding the specific adjudication of issues emanating there from in favour of the Appellant in the impugned order was wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect and not sustainable in law. 4. Brief facts are that the assessee sold one property for a total sale consideration received in respect of Brigade Palace property for a total amount of Rs. 2.50 crores. The Assessing Officer while completing assessment noted from the registered sale deed executed on 05.06.2008 that the assessee and her husband are consenting parties for a total sale consideration of Rs. 1,03,85,710/-. Further, the assessee also executed a deed of nomination on 05.06.2008 and as per this deed of nomination paid a compensation of Rs. 1,46,14,290/-. The assessee claimed that the total amount received at Rs. 2.50 crores was sale consideration for transfer of property vide registered sale deed vide document no. 394/2008-09, which includes the amount of Rs. 1,03,85,710/- as sale conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri. 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, Bangalore 560 080. There is one developer M/s. Brigade Enterprises Ltd, which is also part of sale deed executed being a consenting party. The assessee also is party for transferring the rights accrued in favour of the first party and in favour of the second party. The relevant clause (1) of sale deed reads as under: 1. That in pursuance of the aforesaid agreement and in consideration of a sum of Rs. 1,03,85,710/- (Rupees One Crore Three Lakh Eighty Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Ten Only) paid to the vendors and the developer as per the agreement to sell and the agreement to build entered into between the consenting parties and the vendors and developer, which the Vendors and the developer do hereby accept and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 1,46,14,290/- is compensation for transferring the rights accrued in favour of the first party, in favour of the second party and hence, these cannot be assessed under the head long term capital gains and it has rightly been assessed by Assessing Officer and CIT(A) under the head income from other sources . We confirm the order of the CIT(A) and this issue of assessee appeal is dismissed. 9. The second issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of the CIT(A) sustaining the notional rent and from unit no. 103, 104 302 at Rs. 50 per sq.ft. and making addition of Rs. 14,86,800/-. For this 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 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t being clubbing provision, but when confronted the assessee neither before the Assessing Officer nor before the CIT(A) could produce any evidences. Even now before us, simply bald statement was made but no evidence whatsoever was produced. Hence, we have no hesitation in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer and that of the CIT(A) and hence, addition is confirmed. This issue of assessee s appeal is dismissed. 13. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the claim of deduction under Chapter VIA of Rs. 1 lakh. For this, the assessee has raised following ground nos. 12 to 14: 12. The CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- in para 22 of the impugned order pertaining to the claim for deduction under Chapter VI A of the Act without assigning proper reasons and justification. 13. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the notes of arguments filed with evidences on all issues comprised of 97 pages was completely overlooked and brushed aside, thereby vitiating the related findings on the ground of gross violation of the principles of legitimate expectation. 14. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that there was no proper opportun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
