9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 934X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground alone and the matter consequently be placed before the concerned Tribunal for adjudication afresh. We consequently allow the instant appeal and set aside the order of the Tribunal. We leave all questions open to be addressed before the Tribunal afresh. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supporting evidence to justify the expenses? (5) Whether the impugned order passed by Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse both on law and facts? 2. Pursuant to the orders dated 17 August 2022 and 11 September 2023 passed during the pendency of this appeal, we are essentially left with the question of applicability of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act"] and of the multiplicative rate which was to be applied at the behest of the appellant. 3. We also take note of a cross-objection which has come to be preferred on behalf of the respondent assessee and which had sought to question the correctness of the view expressed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ["CIT(A)"] on the applicability of Section 50C. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p duty. Hence, this contention of the appellant stands rejected. Consequently, the contention of the appellant that where the property could not be registered due to any reason (here being in extended lal - doora) the transaction in relation thereto was outside the scope of Sec. 50C stands rejected. 4.02 The SECOND ISSUE, was as to in which category. whether "G" or "H", the said property lay. As per the AO, It was in "G" category while as per the appellant it was in "H" category. The appellant furnished the copy of printouts from the' MCD authentic website for house tax purposes. As per the said website, the area of Samaypur village fell in "H" category and Shamaypur village in "G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licative factor of 3 as against 1 as canvassed by the appellant. The above dispute was gone into by me. I am of the firm view that the AO was completely misconceived in applying the multiplicative factor of '3' on the basis of the fact that the appellant was discovered by it to be misusing the agricultural lands owned by it for other than agricultural purposes for which no permission or sanction of or notice to the appropriate authority was given by the appellant. Until and unless by the delegated or subordinate legislation such misuse of lands was subjected to suitable levy by the Delhi government, the multiplicative factor was to be taken as applicable for the lands as appearing in the revenue records of the state government. So ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ef of the consequential reduction resulting from the decrease in the multiplicative factor from 3 to 1. Accordingly the ground no. 2 is partly allowed In the remand report (RR for short), the AO had asked for enhancement by applying category "F" instead of category "G" as applied in the Asstt. Order. This issue of category has been dleat with in detail above holding that category "G" is attracted in the instant case. The AO in RR proposed that STCG should be charged on sale of building portion on the ground that the depreciation was claimed, which brought into play Sec 50. The appellant filed the copy of depreciation chart claiming that no depreciation was charged on the building ever in the past. This fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
