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 →

ITO, Ward 45 (1) , New Delhi Versus Pinky Ganju

2015 (12) TMI 389 - ITAT DELHI

Additions u/s 69B - unexplained investment - CIT(A) deleted the addition invoking the provisions of Section 50-C - Held that:- In this case, the property was allotted by Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. at its market value based on the rate of return from rentals and it was business asset for them. Therefore, the provisions of Section 50C will not be applicable in the case of purchaser of the property. The space was already rented, therefore, the fair market value of the property is decided b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssing Officer in making addition u/s 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1941 towards unexplained investment was not correct and Ld. CIT(A) has rightly directed the Assessing Officer to delete addition - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A .No.-3778/Del/2012 - Dated:- 9-10-2015 - MEMBER For The Appellant by Sh. V. R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DR For The Respondent by Sh. S.K. Chaturvedi, C.A This appeal is filed by the revenue against order dated 21/15/2012 passed by Ld. CIT(A)-XXX, New Delhi. The grounds of app .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

leting the addition made u/s 69 B of the Act. 2. During the period under consideration Mrs. Pinki Ganju and M/S Delight Realtors Pvt. Ltd. jointly have purchased a commercial space bearing no. GF SR of 2045 square ft. at Ansal Plaza, Vaishali for total consideration of ₹ 40,90,000/- only. However, Registrar of property had registered this property at ₹ 1,71,00,000/- and on which registry charge has been paid to the extent of ₹ 11,87,000/- both the partners have invested equal s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ee gave the reply that Section 50C was enacted to decide the sale consideration of an immovable property for the purpose of capital gain in the case of seller of an immovable property as his capital asset below the value determined by stamp authorities and applies to the head of income under Income under the head Capital Gain . The assessee submitted that she was buyer of the property from a builder M/s Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. to purchase the plot and constructed the entire building. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ected the contention of the assessee and added ₹ 65,05,000/- to the income of the assessee. The assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). 4. The Ld. CIT(A) held in Para 4 that : I have considered the assessment order, written submissions and case laws, grounds of appeal of the AR. The facts of the case are narrated in para 1,2 & 3 of the AR very clearly in page 2 above. After going through the recent Delhi Tribunal decisions, I find it clear that Section 50C is applicable to seller of t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

i for which the circle rate for stamp duty was escalated by State Govt. authority. This is not the reason that appellant had to pay more income tax on unreasonable additions. The appellant is a school teacher and Kasmir. lady, settled in Delhi after loosing their properties at Kasmir. She had invested the above 40.90 lakhs to earn some income for survival. It is a deemed provision for computation of capital gains. The section 50C is not applicable to the purchaser of immovable property. In the p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

agrees with the view of the purchasers and seller of the said properties then registry of the property must have been registered at the value of ₹ 40,90,000/- and not on ₹ 1,71,00,000/-. 6. The AR submitted that the property was purchased in A.Y 2008-09. The AR further submitted that the A O without having any evidence of excess amount paid by the buyer, has ignored the fact that assessee paid total amount of ₹ 40,90,000/- to the seller which was confirmed by the seller in fro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sal Plaza. The same space was already rented out by Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd, the builder and owner of Ansal Plaza to Vishal Retail Ltd for a term of 9 years on 50:50 basis. The total consideration of ₹ 40,90,000/- was paid contributing equally by both investors in July 2007 pertaining to Assessment Year 2008-09. The source of investment of ₹ 40,90,000/- were explained to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer by the assessee. Since the space was rented the sale consider .....

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