Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Shri B. Veerappa (HUF) Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward 7 (2) , Bangalore.

2015 (12) TMI 133 - ITAT 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. - ITA No.357/Bang/2015 - Dated:- 9-10-2015 - SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Smt. Pratibha, Advocate. For The Respondent : Shri P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT(DR) ORDER Per VIJAY PAY RAO, JM : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12/2/2015 of the CIT(A)-2, Bangalore, for the assessment year 2008-09. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds: 1) The learne .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lowed the claim of the Appellant. 4) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by AO towards the exemption claimed u/s. 54F of the Act without appreciating the submissions of the Appellant. 5) The learned CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the action of the AO towards issuing two demand notices dated 24.12.2010 & 30.12.2010 respectively to the Appellant and CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that there is no provision in the Act for revising the order by issue of another demand .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

erred in confirming the addition made towards the legitimate incident expenses from income earned 8) Without prejudice, the additions/ disallowances as upheld are arbitrary, excessive and out to be deleted in toto. 9) The CIT(A) erred in upholding the interest u/s.234B of the Act which is liable to deleted. 10) For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed. 3. The assessee is a Karta of an HUF and filed return of in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nsideration of ₹ 1.36 crores. Both these properties were claimed to be agricultural lands and the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54B on the ground that the assessee and coowners purchased further agricultural land during the specified period. A part of the consideration was also invested in construction of the residential unit and therefore, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 54F. The AO, while completing assessment u/s 143(3) denied both the deductions claimed u/s 54B as well as54F by .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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. 4. We have heard learned AR of the assessee as well as the learned departmental representative and considered the relevant material on record. As regards the property bearing survey No.77, Panathur village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East, the AO has recorded the facts in paras.7 and 8 as under: 7. The members of the HUF are: 1. Sri. B Veerappa, K .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2010, filed during the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessment is completed as under: A.Property bearing no. 77, Panathur village, Varthur hobli.Bangalore East. The argument as generated during the course of proceedings is discussed below; 1. The compensation received of Rs:1,30,00,000/- in respect of property bearing Survey No. 77 of Panathur village,Varthur hobli, Bangalore East, having 2 acres and 30 guntas of land. 2. Sale consideration received as per agreement in respect of pr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ngalore in O.S. No. 16632/2004 and decreed by the said Honourable Court dated: 16/04/2007. 5. It is thus clear that the AO considered and held that the assessee has acquired the property by virtue of the compromise deed and order of the Civil Court dated 16/4/2007. On perusal of the settlement/compromise deed and consequential order of the Principal City Civil & Sessions Court, it is clear that in the said compromise proceedings, Smt. Kaveramma confirmed and ratified the sale of the property .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and not the HUF of the assessee comprising the assessee, his wife, son and daughter. If the assessee received any share in the said consideration or compensation received under the compromise/settlement, the same is by virtue of its undivided share in the ancestral property. Therefore, the issue is required to be examined by considering the assessability of the capital gain in the hands of the other joint owner/co-share/co-partitioner of the property of the larger HUF. 6. As far as the property .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uired by the original owner. The assessee has brought out the fact that the entire capital gain in respect of the property bearing survey No.112 has been assessed in the hands of Smt.Kaveramma also vide assessment order dated 28/3/2003. We note that the AO, in the case of Smt. Kaveramma under PAN AQYPK6275D has assessed the capital gain in respect of the said property has discussed in paras.4 & 7 as under: 4. The assessee filed the computation of total income for the year ended 31/03/2008 re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he total area is 2 acres and 7 guntas for a consideration of ₹ 1,36,00,000/- and claimed exemption u/s 54B to the extent of ₹ 10,71,695/- and 54F to the extent of ₹ 85,16,110/- and claimed cost of inflation index and deductions. The assessee declared Net capital gains of ₹ 1,11,809/-. In this regard based on the material available on records, i.e. Sale Deeds executed and the compromise Decree have been examined. …….. 7. The assessee has declared capital gain .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version