TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntitled to exemption u/s 54E. The sac consideration of the appellant is to be considered at 50% out of total i.e. 55 lakhs. The capital gains before exemption come to Rs.33,34,060/- of which 50% would be at Rs. 17,10,939. Accordingly, the capital gains in the case of the appellant is to be considered at Rs.17,10,939 against which the appellant has invested Rs.16 lakhs in NHAI Bonds. Hence, the chargeable long term capital gains in the case of the appellant would be at Rs.1,10,939 [17,10,939- 16,00,000]. AO is directed to consider long term capital gains at Rs.1,10,939 in the case of the appellant as against Rs.17, 43,060 assessed by him. Against revenue. Deduction u/s. 54F in respect of deposits under Capital Gains Accounts Scheme - Held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing No.44 of Gandhi Nagar Pranav Co-operative Society Ltd., Bandra(E), Mumbai- 400 051 were owned jointly by the assessee and his partner in the firm M/s.Furnin Furnin Services 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Mumbai, has erred in basing his decision merely upon an affidavit filed by the assessee, which was never filed before the A.O. and the contents of which were not borne out by the facts on record. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Mumbai, has erred in basing his decision on additional evidence filed in the form of an affidavit, without complying with Rule 46A of the IT Rules and without allowing an opportunity to the A.O to rebut suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Jessy Johnson Manath for Rs. 11 lakhs. Thereafter the said property was introduced by the assessee as capital in the firm M/s. Furnin Furnin Service Centre where assessee was having 50% of share in profit. The firm was dissolved on 31.3.2008. However, prior to the dissolution of the said property was sold and the consideration was divided equally between both the partners. Both the partners declared 50% of the capital gain on sale of tenancy property in respect of their shares. 3.1. The AO was of the opinion that the said property was appearing in the balance sheet of the partnership firm M/s. Furnin Furnin Service Centre as an asset. Therefore, any capital gain in respect of the sale of said property should be taxed in the hands of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ands of the assessee. 4. The assessee strongly agitated this matter before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the facts of the case held as under: "I have considered the facts and perused the material on record. I find that the initial investment in the property was made by both the partners equally. Though the purchase deed was made in name of the appellant due to society by laws but it was agreed that the property will belong to firm. They have also executed an affidavit to effect that both the partner will have equal shares in the property. The asset was brought in the books of the firm and it was being shown in the balance sheet from 1996 since the purchase of property. The sale proceeded received in the name of the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We do not find any reason to tamper with such categorical findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Ground No. 1,2 3 are accordingly dismissed. 8. The second grievance of the Revenue relates to allowance of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act in respect of the amount of the deposit of Rs. 25,14,208/- under Capital Gains Accounts Scheme. 9. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that he has sold 300 shares of Shyamkarna Enterprises to HDIL for sale consideration of Rs. 50 lakhs. The assessee furnished computation of capital gains in this respect. The assessee has computed capital gain at Rs. 49,97,000/- from which he claimed exemption u/s. 54F for purchase of land and construction at Rs. 27,87,792/-and further for deposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccount scheme. The Ld. CIT(A) was convinced that the assessee has invested under capital gains scheme within the time limit prescribed i.e. before filing of the return. As the return was filed in electronic form, there is no requirement of law to submit documents alongwith return of income, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) was of the firm belief that denial of deduction u/s. 54F is without any basis and accordingly directed the AO to allow the claim of deduction made by the assessee in capital gains account scheme. 11. Before us, the Ld. Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the findings of the AO. 12. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated what has been stated before the Ld. CIT(A). 13. We have considered the rival submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
