Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 1197 - ITAT INDORESlump sale u/s 50B on sale - transfer of lease hold rights - HELD THAT:- The claim of the assessee that it was a slump sale has been rightly rejected by the authorities below. Now coming to another submission of the assessee that what is transfer is the lease hold rights. The revenue has not disputed the fact that the property in question was on the basis of lease hold rights. Question as dismissed on the ground that the revenue had not preferred any appeal against the order of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Atul G. Puranik Vs. ITO [2011 (5) TMI 576 - ITAT, MUMBAI] on the question of law by following the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Satish P. Shah [2000 (12) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT]. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has also relied upon the decision of the coordinate bench rendered in the case of Atul G. Puranik Vs. ITO (supra). The facts in that case as noted by the Tribunal that the assessee was allotted rights in the plot on 16th August, 2004 as compensation for the acquisition of lands acquired by the Special Land Acquisition Officer way back in the year 1970/1972. It is noted that the lease hold rights were for 60 years. We find that before the authorities below no such submissions were made. Merely it was stated that the A.O. ought to have referred the valuation to the Valuation Officer. However, this being the legal issue the assessee has relied upon the decision of coordinate bench. We therefore, set aside this issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for his decision. Ground Nos.1 to 2.6 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Deduction u/s 43B in respect of interest actually paid to financial institution during the year - HELD THAT:- As perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. CIT(A) has not rejected the claim on the ground of allowability. The same has been rejected on the basis of evidence being not produced. We find before the A.O. it was categorically stated that the assessee has paid interest to the M.P. Finance Corporation being a state entity. A.O. ought to have verified from the M.P. Finance Corporation. Under the facts disbelieving the assessee was not called for. Therefore, we direct the A.O. to delete this addition. This ground of the assessee is allowed.
|