9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that profit from the sale of residential units were not assessable in the hands of the assessee without appreciating the fact that the assessee was the owner of the land (along with all benefits by way of FSI etc attached thereto) on which such residential units were constructed which were sold out during the impugned financial year? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that profit from the sale of residential units were not assessable in the hands of the assessee without appreciating the fact that construction of the residential units on its land was possible only by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove. Therefore, the Assessing Officer in his order dated 31st December, 2008 passed under Section 143(3) of the Act holding that 67 flats were to sold were valued at Rs. 20.60 Crores. However, after reducing the costs of construction etc., computed the profit at Rs. 10.72 Crores. 4. Being aggrieved, the respondent-assessee carried the issues in the appeal to the CIT(A). By the order dated 22nd May, 2009, the CIT(A) held that in terms of Section 27(iii) of the Act, the shareholder was the owner of the flat. It found that in fact what had been sold were its shares held by its shareholder one M/s.Calico Associates. The sale of shares by its shareholder - M/s. Calico Associates was brought to tax under the head 'capital gain' in the h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng of fact that during the subject Assessment Year, the respondent-asseseee had not sold any asset including any flat. The only sale which took place was of its shares by M/s. Calico Associates i.e. it shareholder. Thus, shares which carry its right to occupy the flats has already been subjected to tax in the hands of the shareholder. Thus, the concurrent findings of fact rendered by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal not being shown to be perverse and/or arbitrary, no interference is called for. 7. Further, we find that the questions as raised before us in respect of impairment of land (use of FSI) was not canvassed before the Tribunal. Therefore, the question as raised does not arise out of the Tribunal's order. In any case, the finding of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
