Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2012 (4) TMI 473

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aneously claimed that a note was enclosed with the return stating that long term capital gains on the sale of the property was exempt under Section 54, consequent upon her purchase of a residential house in Vasant Vihar for more than Rs.13 crores. The Assessing Officer expressed reservation/doubt about the exemption claim by Deepika Mittal under Section 54 after stating that only Rs.50 lacs was paid to her and balance amount was payable on registration of the sale deed. - held that:- The Revenue should have examined and verified the records before raising the said contention in this appeal. - ITA 401/2011 - - - Dated:- 29-2-2012 - MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA, MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR, JJ. For Appellant: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, sr. standing .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... said addition under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act on the ground that the partnership firm was not the shareholder in Bharti Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. The aforesaid reasoning/ratio cannot be sustained and is contrary to the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. National Travel Services, [2011] 14 taxmann.com 14 (Delhi). This position is accepted by the respondent-assessee. 4. Accordingly, we are inclined to allow the present appeal to this extent, after framing substantial question of law. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee submits that the payment of Rs.2,13,84,360/- was not out of accumulated profits but this contention was not examined by the CIT (A) and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as the res .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dential house in Vasant Vihar for more than Rs.13 crores. The Assessing Officer expressed reservation/doubt about the exemption claim by Deepika Mittal under Section 54 after stating that only Rs.50 lacs was paid to her and balance amount was payable on registration of the sale deed. 7. The CIT (A) in his order has however given a contra finding. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has confirmed the deletion made by the CIT (A). Contention of the Revenue is that the findings of the CIT (A) and the Tribunal is perverse and factually incorrect. 8. We are repeatedly noticing that the Revenue does not file relevant documents and papers when the question of perversity on factual aspects is challenged before this Court. Without examining the releva .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... counsel for the respondent-assessee had submitted that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is factually correct and not false. He had further submitted that the CIT(Appeals) had also recorded a similar factual finding. He had argued that payment of Rs.2.65 crores was not disputed by the Assessing Officer. Ld. standing counsel for the Revenue had disputed the said statement and had referred to the assessment order. 8 . In view of the aforesaid position, ld. counsel for the assessee had stated that he shall submit before us relevant details of payment to Deepika Mittal. 9 . Relevant details have been produced before us, which shows that payment of Rs.50 lacs was made to Deepika Mittal in March, 2000 and a further sum of Rs.2.65 crores .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r 28/11/06 on Ld. Ar s request. Further, notional loss as diminution of share value will not be allowed. 12. It is apparent that the Assessing Officer did not proceed further on the said aspects. We may note here that the respondent-assessee and Deepika Mittal had obtained permission under Chapter XXC of the Act from the appropriate authority. It is also apparent that the Assessing Officer did not ask for the valuation report from the appropriate authority. There are questions and doubts, which remain as the property purchased in February/April, 2000 for Rs.3.15 crores was sold in May, 2003 for Rs.2.40 crores, but in the absence of enquiries and failure to uncover facts, we cannot proceed and hold that the order of the Tribunal is per .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates