9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pital as part of cost of acquisition for the purpose of computing capital gains. Ground no.3 of grounds of appeal of the assessee is allowed. Recalculation of income from house property - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the computation of income filed we observe that the assessee has declared income from house property at Rs. 1,80,000 and also declared lease rent from cars under the head income from other sources . On perusal of the assessment order, we notice that the AO misdirected himself in considering the rental income from property and in recomputing the income under the head income from house property Thus, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made in the assessment order. Loss on sale of land - HELD THAT:- CIT (A) was under the view that this capital loss allowed by the Assessing Officer is not correct. We observe that the cost of acquisition arrived at by the assessee at Rs. 49,56,133/- includes interest of Rs. 19,22,524/- on borrowed loan for purchase of property which was treated as cost of acquisition. We also notice that the purchase cost of the property to the assessee s share of 50% is Rs. 29,91,391/- and after indexation, the cost of acquisition stood at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the depreciation to 15% as against 40% claimed by the assessee on cars. The assessee gave two cars on hire and earned income of Rs. 5,73,600/- and this was offered to income under the head income from other sources . The assessee claimed expense i.e. car insurance, interest on car loan from the said income. The assessee also claimed depreciation on cars @ 40%. The Assessing Officer, while completing the assessment, restricted the depreciation to 15% which was sustained by the learned CIT (Appeals). The learned counsel submits that the cars were given on hire and lease rent received from the vehicles was offered as income and, therefore, the depreciation on leased vehicles has to be allowed at 30% and not at 15%. 4. Learned Departmental Representative placed reliance on the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. On perusal of page no.18 of the paper book which is the letter furnished to the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment proceedings we noticed that the assessee contended before the Assessing Officer that he owns three cars out of which two cars were given on lease rent and one car was used for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer disallowed Rs. 19,22,524 being 50% of interest paid of Rs. 38,45,045. This was sustained by the learned CIT (Appeals). 8. The learned counsel before us submits that the learned CIT (Appeals) sustained the disallowance observing that the details during the appellate proceedings, the date of payment given by the assessee by way of disbursal letter did not tally with the prepayment letter given by the assessee. The learned counsel further submits that the detail of interest paid in earlier years is placed at page 25 of the paper books. It is submitted that prepayment details and disbursal letter from the India Bulls are given at pages 26 to 35 of the paper books and it could be seen therein that there is no difference in amounts stated as the interest paid in earlier years beyond disbursal letter. 9. The learned counsel further submits that interest paid by the assessee on acquisition of assets in earlier years is to be treated as part of cost of acquisition and placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mithlesh Kumari (92 ITR 9) and the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Raja Gopala Rao (252 ITR 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in adding the interest amount of Rs. 16,878.00 towards the actual cost of the land. 5.3 Further in the case of ACIT vs. C. Ramabrahmam, the ITAT Chennai Bench C in ITA No. 943/Mds/2012 has held that the assessee had purchased house property, availing loan. The house property was subsequently sold and assessee included interest paid on housing loan while computing capital gains u/sw.48. The Assessing Officer was opinion that since interest in question on housing loan, had already been claimed as deduction u/s 24(b), the same could not be taken into consideration for computation u/s 48 and interest amount was added to income of assessee. The C) reversed the findings of Ld. AO and held deduction u/s. 24(b) and computation of capital gains u/s. 48 were altogether covered by different heads of income i.e., income from house property and capital gains . None of them excludes operation of the other. The interest in question was indeed expenditure in acquiring asset. Since both provisions were altogether different, assessee was entitled to include interest paid on housing loan for computation of capital gains u/s 48 despite the fact that same had been claimed u/s 24(b) while computing inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income under the head income from house property Thus, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 2,75,520 made in the assessment order. 16. The last and ground no.5 of grounds of appeal of the assessee is in respect of enhancing the income by the learned CIT (Appeals) on account of loss on sale of land. We observe from the learned CIT (Appeals) s order that he was of the view that assessee has claimed loss on sale of plot and in the absence of any reply, the learned CIT (Appeals) disallowed a sum of Rs. 39,75,568 which resulted in enhancement of income. 17. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submits that the assessee had declared an amount of Rs. 4,32,164/- being loss under the head income from capital gain/loss . However, on coming to know that there was some computational error in the capital loss shown by the assessee, the computation was suo moto revised by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. On revision capital gain of Rs. 9,20,328/- was declared by the assessee and the capital loss of Rs. 4,32,164/- which was earlier claimed to be carry forward was not so claimed. The same is also accepted by the Ld. A.O (page 2 of assessment order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
