9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 1032X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned Assessing Officer in not appreciating the fact that during the year under consideration appellant has only registered the purchase/sales agreement and actual transaction happened in the A.Y. 2010-11 and corresponding income already offered for taxation In A.Y.2010-11, therefore making an addition for the same income, tantamount double taxation which is not allowable under the Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the actions of the Learned Assessing Officer in not appreciating the fact that the appellant and his wife jointly held the property in the equal proportion of share. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the actions of the Learned Assessing Officer in not considering the purchase value of flat as mentioned in the agreement as cost of acquisition of flat, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the actions of the Learned Assessing Officer in considering the Sale consideration of flat at Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annot be subjected to tax again in A.Y. under consideration. Those contentions of the assessee were not accepted by Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer observed that those flats had been booked by the assessee in violation of the slum rehabilitation scheme (SRA) of Government of Maharashtra. Further the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee did not receive full payment against sale to Shri Abhishek Agarwal and Shri Aadesh Agarwal. The Assessing Officer noted that part payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- and Rs. 2,31,500/- respectively was paid by the assessee to builder against the purchase price of Rs. 12,33,000/- of each flat and the balance amount had been paid by Shri Abhishek Agarwal and Shri Aadesh Agarwal to the builder. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee could claim capital gain on the part of the investment made by him. The long term capital gain declared by the assessee in assessment year 2010-11 though noted by the assessing officer, was found not to be properly calculated. According to Assessing Officer, the assessee should have offered long term capital gain on sale of properties at Rs. 4,90,691/- for A.Y. 2010-11, but the assessee availed benefi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee has taken full value of consideration as cost of acquisition for calculation of capital gain, even after he has not paid full amount of consideration to the seller till the date of so called claim of sell of these properties to Shri Abhishek Agarwal and Shri. Aadesh Agarwal. The assessee has also divided cost of acquisition of the properties equal with co-owner, Smt. Lata Agarwal, even after, she has not invested any sum for purchase of flat no. 1404 Smt. Lata Agarwal has invested Rs. 1,50,000/- on 16.03.2006 for purchase of flat no. 1405. The assessee can claim indexation on the part of the investment made by him. If, it is assumed that the assessee's all claims/data/documents are correct than the night calculation of LTCG are as under: Flat No. Sale Date Cost Date Sale Value Cost Value Indexed Cost LTCG offered by the assessee Investment in new property (Rs) LTCG to be offer 1404 12/12/2009 28/03/2006 21,55,500 3,00,000 3,81,489 17,74,011 15,95,750 1,78,261 1405 12/12/2009 27/06/2006 21,55,500 2,03,100 2,47,320 19,08,180 15,95,750 3,12,430 4,90,691 Hence, it can be seen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Shri. Aadesh Agarwal for sale of the respective flats in financial year 2009-10. In view of the above documents, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the capital gain arising on the sale of those two flats has already been offered by the assessee in return of income for A.Y. 2010-11. He submitted that only registration documents have been prepared in the assessment year under consideration, in view of the conditions imposed by the builder and in effect the flats had already transferred in the name of Shri. Abhishek Agarwal and Shri. Aadesh Agarwal, who are sons of the assessee. The Ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of K. Ramakrishnan reported in (2014) 48 taxman.com 55 (Delhi)/[2014] 225 Taxman 123 (Delhi), wherein the date of allotment has been held to be date of purchase of the property and not the date of registration of conveyance deed. The Ld. counsel also relied on the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Anita D Kanjani in ITA No. 2291/Mum/2015 for A.Y. 2011-12, wherein also the holding period of the property has been held to be computed from the date of issue of the all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
