Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 253 - AT - Income TaxLong term capital gain - selection of AY - when transfer of a property under the I T Act happens ? - Held that:- In the instant case the conveyance deed was registered only on 29-5-2008, it can be safely concluded that the transfer of property for the purposes of capital gains took place on 29-5-2008 and the consequent conclusion that the gain or loss therefrom shall only be available for taxation in FY 2008-09 relevant to AY 2009-10. Thus the action of the AO in taxing the impugned capital gains of ₹ 2,490,78,280/- in AY 2009-10 was a legally correct decision which also finds strength from the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suraj Lamps [2011 (10) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ] - Decided against assessee. Adoption of cost of acquisition of Shahwadi Property - whether the adoption of FMV by the registered valuer of the impugned property at ₹ 13,72,0007- is a correct value or not? - Held that:- Facts on records, indicate that physical inspection of the property was done by the valuer on 26-9-2008 and the report was submitted by him on 29-9-2008 i.e. within a short period of three days. The valuation report further indicates that the comparable sale instances adopted by the valuer are in respect of properties which are not located in the immediate vicinity. Thus, the valuation report, prepared by the registered value M/s/ K C Engineers, cannot be accepted as a true and correct estimation of the FMV of the property as on 1-4-1981. The impugned property has not been disclosed in any wealth tax returns by the appellant which could have been helpful to estimate its FMV. Considering the peculiar aspect and the infirmities and deficiencies in the valuation of the registered valuer, it is considered reasonable, if the FMV of the property as on 1-4-1981 is restricted to ₹ 8,00,000/- as against ₹ 13,72,000/-. The A O is accordingly directed to recalculate LTCG taking the value of property as on 1-4-81 at ₹ 8,00,000/-. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. Part allowance of claimed deduction u/s. 54F - Held that:- In the case in hand, the agreement to sell dated 31/03/2008 had already been acted upon the parties by delivery possession and registering sale-deed. Therefore, for this reason also, the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt.Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and Another (supra), would not help the Revenue. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|