Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Smt. Aruna Kommuri Versus Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-4, Hyderabad

2016 (8) TMI 21 - ITAT HYDERABAD

Valuation u/s. 50C - Held that:- AO is correct in invoking the provisions of Section 50C. Assessee either should have objected to the valuation before the SRO or should have objected the valuation before the AO who in turn could have referred it to the Valuation Officer. Since neither of the actions was undertaken by assessee, the provisions of Section 50C are to be applied as such. Eventhough the amount of difference is small; there is no option to the appellate authorities not to ignore the 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

0 Sq. Ft., without any internal partition walls. Assessee along with her husband has sold 6,185 Sq. Ft., in the first floor along with undivided share of land and the sale documents do indicate that there were partition walls and toilets. Obviously, these could have been incurred by assessee. Even though, no details could be furnished to the satisfaction of AO/CIT(A), the fact cannot be denied that assessee had to incur some expenditure on the partition walls and the toilets, being provided on 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

the property? If so, whether assessee’s husband also owns any property as the submissions made before the AO vide letter dt. 11-12-2015 do indicate that Shri K. Pratap Reddy owns 1/4th share only. It is also stated that the same was accepted in an assessment u/s. 143(3) dt. 31-12-2009. Thus, the submissions by assessee indicates that Shri K. Pratap Reddy holds 1/4th share while assessee owns 1/4th share and her two sons owns the balance share at 1/4th each. Consequently, there are four persons .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is also directed to give credit accordingly in the respective hands. - I.T.A. No. 553/HYD/2016 - Dated:- 15-7-2016 - SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri G. Kalyandas, AR For The Revenue : Shri K.E. Sunil Babu, DR ORDER This is an appeal by assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Hyderabad, dated 27-01-2016. Assessee has raised five grounds, out of which, Ground No.1 & 5 are general in nature. 2. Briefly stated, assessee is an individu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

llant contends SRO sale value is not a fair market value approved of law. 2.3. Authorities below ought to have noted difference between SRO value and actual sale value works out to 2.67% only which is permitted under law. 3. The issue in this ground is with reference to invoking of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act [Act]. AO has noticed that Sub- Registrar, Valuation mention in the Sale Deed on the property sold by assessee on which capital gain was offered was at ₹ 67,40,000/-, whereas as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the judgment was issued in the context of compulsory acquisition consequently, does not having any application to the facts of the case. 3.1. Even though Ld. Counsel reiterated the submissions and relied on the above case law, I am of the opinion that AO is correct in invoking the provisions of Section 50C. Assessee either should have objected to the valuation before the SRO or should have objected the valuation before the AO who in turn could have referred it to the Valuation Officer. Since nei .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. Ground : 3.1. Authorities below erred in disallowing expenditure of ₹ 7.53 lakhs for construction of partition walls and toilets for sale of the office premises in 3 portions. 3.2. Authorities ought to have noted that appellant had purchased 9000 Sq feet of office area without internal partition walls and since large area could not be sold, appellant divided the area and sold them under 3 sale deeds. 3.3. Authorities below erred in holding that no evidence for bank withdrawals and constr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nk a/c as source of incurrence of such expenditure. Since the same could not be verified as no further details were furnished as required by the AO, in the computation of capital gains the cost of improvement was restricted to the evidence furnished to the AO, thereby amount of ₹ 7,52,550/- stated to have been incurred in Financial Year 2002-03 for additional works was disallowed. 4.1. It was contended by the Ld. Counsel that assessee along with her husband has acquired 500 Sq. Yds., of la .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

de by assessee way back in Financial Year 2002-03. Since property could not be leased out or developed the same were sold in part during the year under consideration. Since the expenditure was incurred long back, assessee is not in a position to furnish any evidence to the satisfaction of the AO, however, it was submitted that assessee s husband being a civil contractor has developed the partitions and toilets which can be evidenced from the sale deeds and this expenditure was not spent by the d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e that assessee was to get constructed first floor admeasuring 9,000 Sq. Ft., without any internal partition walls. Assessee along with her husband has sold 6,185 Sq. Ft., in the first floor along with undivided share of land and the sale documents do indicate that there were partition walls and toilets. Obviously, these could have been incurred by assessee. Even though, no details could be furnished to the satisfaction of AO/CIT(A), the fact cannot be denied that assessee had to incur some expe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Authorities below ought to have noted that along with her son appellant are joint owner of ½ share in the property and tenant since paid TDS ₹ 1,00,542/- in respect of ½ share and ld AO having assessed ½ share income be directed to allow TDS credit. 5. Ground No. 4 pertains to the addition of entire rental income in the hands of assessee. As can be seen from the ground raised above, assessee is not full owner of the property and assessee with her son hold 1/4th share e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version