Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1107 - AT - Income TaxLong term capital gain - deduction of expenditure related to sale of assets - Exemption u/s.54F - After claiming certain expenditure of sale, i.e. development of land, commission expenses and after indexation of cost of land and further claiming exemption u/s.54F etc., the assessee claimed total long term capital gain at Nil - AR contended that the assessee was not having good terms with these two persons to whom payment of commission was made through banking channel - HELD THAT:- It was explained that the amount was genuinely paid to these two persons. It is seen as an admitted position that the assessee could not produce these two persons before the AO despite request made by him in this regard. In view of the fact that the ld. AR has claimed that these two persons can be now made available, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would meet adequately if the impugned order on this score is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of AO. We order accordingly and direct him to examine the claim of the assessee in respect of commission paid to these two persons at ₹ 8.00 lakh which is shared by both the assessees in question. Development cost of land claimed by the assessee - AO disallowed 10% of total expenses incurred by the assessee and computed capital gains accordingly - HELD THAT:- It is apparent from the report of the Inspector that the claim of the assessee stood verified and vouched that he carried out development of land by constructing boundary wall, borewells, installation of electrical pump sets etc. When the report of the Inspector was given to the AO fortifying the claim of the assessee, there could have been no reason to disallow 10% of the expenditure incurred by the assessee in this regard. Such an ad hoc addition, in our considered opinion, cannot be sustained. We, therefore, order to delete the addition. Exemption claimed u/s.54F - HELD THAT:- As evident from the above extracted portion of the assessment order that the limited scrutiny was qua exemption, inter alia, u/s.54 etc. and capital gain consideration. All the issues taken note by the AO in the case of both the assesses are qua the computation of the ultimate amount of capital gains from the transfer of the same property. It is not as if the AO, after initiating limited scrutiny for examination of capital gains, proceeded to make some other addition under some other heads etc. As such, no fault can be found in the action of the AO in examining different facets of the computation of capital gain. We, therefore, dismiss the additional ground raised in both the appeals.
|