Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2017 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 134 - HC - Income TaxAdopting the cost of acquisition of flat on the basis of gift deed - Held that:- There is nothing on record to doubt the correctness of the report or its contents. The Tribunal has found that in absence of any evidence to doubt the correctness of the approved valuer's report the same should have been accepted by the department. Once, the Act had given the option to the assessee and the assessee had acted in accordance thereof and exercised her option to rely on the fair market value of the assets as on 1.4.1981 which she duly supported with evidence, it was not open to the Assessing Officer to take a different view. Further, the fact that in the gift deed value of the asset was mentioned at ₹ 10,00,000/- is of no consequence. That valuation is irrelevant and extraneous to the issue involved Section 55 (2) (b) (ii) does not require such value to be considered or even be relevant. In any case that value was relevant only for purpose of determination of stamp duty payable on the gift deed and not to determine capital gains. The finding of the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity. - Decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Allowance of expenditure incurred in the business of share trading - Held that:- Expenditure incurred in trading shares; cost of improvement of the flat and; legal expenses incurred were claimed by the assessee on the basis of evidence found existing on record. The Tribunal has considered the same and thereafter allowed the claim of expenditure incurred in the business of share trading as also cost of improvement of the flat and litigation expenditure. The findings recorded by the Tribunal have not been shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. Being pure findings of fact recorded on the basis of evidence existing on record, the same do not warrant any interference merely because a different conclusion was also possible to be drawn. Questions of law A, C and D as raised are therefore answered accordingly i.e. the same are on questions of fact and therefore do not warrant any interference in this appeal.
|