2016 (3) TMI 823 - ITAT JAIPUR
Shri Virendra Singh and Shri Surendra Singh Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (1) , Alwar
Deduction u/s 54B and 54F - Entitlement to claim whether the return has actually been filed under section 139(1) or under section 139(4)? - Held that - A combined reading of section 54B(2) read with the proviso clearly provides that the amount of the capital gain which is not utilized by the assessee for the purchase of the new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) should be deposited with a bank/institution in a specified scheme irrespective of whether the return has actually been filed under section 139(1) or under section 139(4) of the Act. - The legi ....... - .......
2016 (2) TMI 425 - ITAT DELHI
ACIT, Sonepat Circle, Sonepat Versus Shri Sher Singh Shivrain and Vica-Versa
Addition on account of long term capital gain on sale of 2 residential houses and agricultural land - Held that - Both the sale deeds have been placed in the paper book. It is further seen that the sale deed dated 14.7.2008 was specifically in respect of sale of farms house including rain water harvesting systems in the instant year. The appellant has also furnished a valuation report dated 1.7.2008 valuing the cost incurred for development work in land/farmhouse at ₹ 1,55,27,000/-. Neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) or learned DR has pointed out any defect in the valuation rep ....... - .......
2015 (12) TMI 133 - ITAT BANGALORE
Shri B. Veerappa (HUF) Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward 7 (2) , Bangalore.
Deductions claimed u/s 54B and 54F denied treating capital gain as short-term capital gain (STCG) - CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO by treating the capital gain arising from the transfer of the property as STCG as well as the entire income was assessed in the hands of the assessee-HUF - Held that - The documents filed by the assessee, being additional evidence, are very much relevant and crucial for adjudicating the matter of assessment of capital gain in the hands of the assessee. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case as well as the observations made in the foregoing ....... - .......
2015 (9) TMI 899 - ITAT DELHI
Shri Amit Gupta, C/o Heena Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT, Circle-I, Faridabad And Vica-Versa
Reopening of assessment - assessee has not complied with the provisions of section 54B of the Act for claiming deduction - whether reasons to believe do not survive? - CIT(A) deleted the disallowance - Held that - When the assessee is showing income from business and profession in the return of income either negative or positive, then obviously, the assessee falls within the ambit of non-corporate tax payers which includes partners of the firm and hence, date of filing of return applicable for the assessee would be 31.10.06. We may further point out that when admittedly and undisputedly, the a ....... - .......
2015 (10) TMI 1459 - ITAT PANAJI
Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Anthony Jose Fernandes And Vica-Versa
Deduction u/s 54B - CIT(A) had accepted the Assessee s claim that the land sold was an agricultural land and had also allowed the Assessee s claim of deduction u/s 54B to the extent of ₹ 1 crore representing the amount paid by the Assessee to the seller of the agricultural land - Held that - A perusal of the land records, more specifically Form No. II, in Nagarcem Palolem shows that the land sold by the Assessee has been recorded in the Revenue records as an agricultural land. In these circumstances, as the Revenue records of the State clearly hold the land which has been sold as an agri ....... - .......
2015 (11) TMI 1195 - ITAT JAIPUR
Shri Om Prakash Rajoria Versus The CIT, Ajmer
Revision u/s 263 - deduction u/s 54B claimed by assessee qua sale of Sohna land was wrongly allowed as one half of the new agriculture land was purchased in the name of the assessee s wife Smt. Anita Rajni - Held that - While examining the record under sec. 263, CIT has to see whether the subordinate authority has considered relevant issues and enquired into the relevant aspect of the claims in the year in question. Since the agricultural income in this year was not shown, the AO before partly accepting the assessee s claim u/s 54B ought to have enquired whether the land in question was used f ....... - .......
2015 (7) TMI 486 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Income-tax, Faridabad Versus Shri Dinesh Verma
Entitlement to the claim exemption u/s 54B - the asset sold was not a long term capital asset but a short term capital asset that is not eligible for exemption under section 54B, 54D and 54F as is clear from CBDT Circular No.495 dated 22.09.1987 as per AO - ITAT allowed claim - Held that - All the ingredients of Section 54B exist in the present case. Firstly, the land sold by the assessee was a capital asset. Secondly, this capital asset was land. Thirdly, during the two years immediately preceding the date on which the transfer took place, the land was being used by the respondent for agricul ....... - .......
2015 (7) TMI 73 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Shree Bhagwanbhai Revabhai Prajapati and others Versus The ACIT, Central Circle 1 (4) , Ahmedabad and others
Eligibility exemption u/s.54B with regard to the on money received on sale of agriculture land - undisclosed income of the block period - Held that - Assessee has received ₹ 1,90,88,759/- (including on money) (Assessing Officer has taken ₹ 95,25,836/- only on which the exemption u/s.54B was claimed) on account of sale consideration of of Gatrad land. The said sale consideration includes mount of sale consideration shown in sale deed and on money received thereon. Out of sale consideration received, assessee has invested ₹ 92,47,100/- (Assessing Officer has mistakenly taken as ....... - .......
2015 (7) TMI 200 - IITAT JAIPUR
Sita Ram Sharma and Others Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-7 (2) , Jaipur.
Long term capital gain on sale of land - agricultural land in terms of section 2(14) - Held that - The land sold by all the brothers situated in village- Sanjhaia, Tehsil- Sanganer, district- Jaipur. In case of assessee s brother namely Shri Ram Sahay Sharma in A.Y. 2007-08 by the ITO ward 7(2), Jaipur order dated 25/03/2013 had not made any addition on account of long term capital gain. Further the ld CIT(A) as well as this Bench also allowed the appeal in case of Smt. Kamla Devi Sharma (2015 (7) TMI 195 - ITAT JAIPUR), who also sold her land at Sanjharia village to M/s Vatika Ltd. on 16/05/2 ....... - .......
2015 (5) TMI 580 - ITAT DELHI
ITO Versus Kanwar Pal Rajput
Disallowance of deduction u/s 54B - non utilization of capital gain before the due date of furnishing of the return - investment in the agricultural land - CIT(A) deleted the disallowance - assessee sold urban agricultural land and claimed the deduction u/s 54B on account of investment made in agricultural land - Held that - The assessee can furnish the return of income at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or be fore the completion of assessment whichever is earlier. In the present case, the assessment year assessment year 2007-08 which ends on ....... - .......
2015 (9) TMI 428 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
Shri Koganti Venkata Ramaiah Versus ACIT, Circle 2 (1) Vijayawada
Commission/royalty estimated at 2 on accrued basis on the sub contracted work - revision u/s 263 by CIT(A) as AO without properly examining the material on record has estimated the profit at 2 on work given on sub contract basis as claimed by the assessee and has not examined the assessee s claim of exemption under section 54F for an amount of ₹ 11.00 lakhs against the capital gain arising out of sale of agricultural land - Held that - As far as the first issue relating to CIT s directions on estimation of profit from work contract business, as agreed by both the parties, it is of mere a ....... - .......
2014 (12) TMI 301 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Income Tax Officer Versus Shri G. Raghavendra Rao, Hyderabad
Assessment of capital gain on sale of land at Maqta Mehaboobpet Held that - AO came to the conclusion that there is transfer of capital asset i.e. land admeasuring acre 1.235 guntas by assessee to MDPL by solely relying upon the agreement of sale-cum-GPA dated 31/07/08 - though assessee had entered into agreement of sale-cum-GPA but it never received the consideration of ₹ 7,14,37,500 as mentioned in the agreement of sale-cum-GPA - Nothing has been brought on record by AO during the assessment proceeding or even by the revenue to controvert the fact that the cheque No.600873 dated 31/07/ ....... - .......
2015 (2) TMI 572 - ITAT PANAJI
Income Tax Officer Versus Mr. Tome Hilitor Silvester De Oliveira
Capital gain on transfer of land used for agricultural purposes not to be charged in certain cases - whether CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction U/S 54B without considering the basic condition of the said section the assessee should have used the land for agricultural purpose for a period of two years? - Held that - We set aside the order of CIT(A) as, in our opinion, the provisions of Sec. 54B mandates that the land must have been in the two years immediately preceding the date on which the transfer took place used by the Assessee or his parent for agricultural purpose. This section nowher ....... - .......
2015 (3) TMI 186 - ITAT BANGALORE
Smt. Veena N Versus Income Tax Officer Bangalore
Exemption u/s 54B disallowed - Held that - The contention of the Assessing Officer is that the assessee failed to produce the evidence indicating the user of the land. On the other hand the assessee has submitted copy of the Revenue record maintained by the Revenue Officers of the State Govt. On due consideration of the remand report vis- -vis the evidence submitted by the assessee, we are of the view that the learned Assessing Officer failed to make an analytical investigation on this issue.The learned Assessing Officer ought to have collected revenue record from the Revenue Officer, which co ....... - .......
2014 (7) TMI 1003 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Income Tax-IV Versus Hotz Industries Ltd.
Revision u/s 263 - Disallowance u/s 14A Held that - Without pronouncing whether the figures given by the assessee were incorrect, the Commissioner recorded that this required verification from the records - This is impermissible and cannot be allowed u/s 263 as the Commissioner must reach the finding that the assessment order restricting disallowance under Section 14A to ₹ 45,07,413/- was erroneous and incorrect order of the Tribunal upheld Decided against Revenue. - Loans/assets written off Held that - Once inquiries were conducted and a decision was reached by the AO, it cannot be said ....... - .......