Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 1593 - AT - Income TaxReducing the cost of acquisition - Held that:- CIT (A) has noted that the fact that the copy of registry which the Assessing Officer claimed to reflect the cost per acre at ₹ 50,000/- per acre was never provided to the assessee for his comments and, therefore, the Assessing Officer’s reliance on the same was not justified. As placing reliance on the judgment Jagat Mohan Kapur (1994 (4) TMI 50 - CALCUTTA High Court) as well as Heera Lal Lokchandani vs ITO (2006 (11) TMI 241 - ITAT CUTTACK) for holding that the cost inflation index cannot be applied in the reverse direction. As DR in the course of proceedings before us, could not point out any judgment to the contrary favouring the revenue in this regard. Therefore, in such a circumstance, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT (A) on this issue and we uphold the same. Income from sale of land - nature of land - Held that:- As undisputed that the land existed in the name of the assessee and the copies of Jambandi were also filed as a proof of the agricultural land being registered in the name of the assessee and, therefore, the ld. CIT (A) was correct in negating the claim of the Assessing Officer that the income of ₹ 1,06,62,500/- had to be treated as income from capital gains. Deduction u/s 54B - Held that:- As per revised agreement dated 20.03.2008, the date of possession was shifted to 3.5.2009. He has also noted that the land was finally registered on 28.05.2009 in the name of the assessee and the payments till then were kept by the assessee in the capital gain account scheme. Ld. CIT(A) has also noted that the agreement was made first and the possession was transferred as per the terms of the agreement and that the Assessing Officer had not been able to point out anything adverse or defective in that agreement. The Ld. CIT(A) had also referred to the provisions of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and provisions of section 2(47)(v) applicable to the assessment order in question and has held that the assessee satisfied all the conditions for claiming of deduction u/s 54B of the Act. This factual finding of the Ld. CIT (A) could not be negated by the Ld. Sr. DR during the course of proceedings before us. The department has not been able to point out any factual or legal defect in the action of the Ld. CIT (A) in directing the Assessing Officer to allow claim of deduction u/s 54B. In the circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT (A) on this issue also - Revenue appeal dismised.
|