Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 949 - ITAT BANGALORERectification of mistake u/s 154 - Tribunal has held that all the judgements cited by AR of assessee are distinguishable - nature of capital gain only whether the same is short term capital gain or long term capital gains - Held that:- There is an apparent mistake in the Tribunal order because it has been simply stated that various judgements referred to by the assessee are all distinguishable on facts without any specific reasoning and basis as to how these judgements are distinguishable on facts and in course of hearing of the M.P., it was the submission that at least in the judgment rendered in the case of Vinod Kumar Jain Vs. CIT &Ors. [2010 (9) TMI 850 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] the facts were at least apparently similar and hence, in our considered opinion, there is apparent mistake in the Tribunal order while deciding this issue in respect of holding period of the asset in question on sale of which the resulting capital gain was declared by the assessee as long term capital gain but was assessed by the AO as short term capital gain and in the process, claim of deduction u/s 54 was also disallowed. Hence, we recall this Tribunal order for limited purpose of deciding this issue afresh in respect of holding period of asset in question i.e. the flat at Hiranandani Meadows which was sold by the assessee through registered sale agreement dated 29.09.2009 and which was purchased by the assessee through registered purchase deed dated 06.03.2009 although as per the assessee, the said flat was allotted on 22.02.2006 and full payment was also made and therefore, the allotment date has to be taken as date of acquisition. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|