Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 794 - ITAT PUNEDisallowance of commission claimed as deduction while computing the cost of sale of land - AO had disallowed the same for want of details and confirmation of the payments - before the ld. CIT(A), assessee submitted that the expenses being share of stamp duty expenses as borne by the assessee, thus deleted the additio - HELD THAT:- At the time of hearing also, assessee could not justify such share of stamp duty expenses and neither could place on record any evidence to show regarding the claim made by the assessee. We are not in conformity with the findings of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and since he has come to a conclusion without examination of any evidence and also has failed to provide specific reasons regarding the allowability of share of stamp duty expenses while computing capital gains, the findings of the CIT(A) are therefore, reversed and the addition made by the AO is restored. Ground no.1 of Revenue’s appeal stands allowed. Indexed cost of improvement while computing the capital gains - CIT(A) has deleted the addition by holding that such addition was made by the AO merely on suspicion, doubts and surmises without bringing any concrete evidence, simply rejecting the contentions of the assessee - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered view that the onus always lies upon the assessee who seeks deduction of expenses. The assessee has to prove the genuineness of the expenditure claimed towards indexed cost of improvement. In this case, the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the expenditure and, therefore, it was not correct, judicially, for ld. CIT(A) allowing the indexed cost of improvement made to the asset sold. We do not find any merit in the findings of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and the same is reversed. Ground No.2 of appeal of the Revenue stands allowed. Exemption u/s 54F - The findings of the ld. CIT(A) is devoid and bereft of any merit allowing benefit of exemption u/sec. 54F which is therefore reversed and accordingly, the ground of appeal no.3 filed by the Revenue stands allowed. Deduction u/sec. 54EC - time limit for investment exceeded - HELD THAT:- The issue is covered by the decision of CIT vs. Coromandal Industries Limited [2014 (12) TMI 852 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] as held from a reading of Section 54EC(1) and the first proviso, it is clear that the time limit for investment is six months from the date of transfer and even if such investment falls under two financial years, the benefit claimed by the assessee cannot be denied.
|