TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1029X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out of advance of sale receipts being eligible for deduction u/s 11(1A). Also find that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that when the advance was given for new capital asset and FDs were purchased, the assessee had not received commensurate advance out of sale consideration. It is noted that when assessee paid advance of ₹ 21 Lacs for purchase of new asset, it had received only ₹ 6 lacs towards sale consideration. Similarly, when FDs were purchased for ₹ 30 Lac, it had received another sum of only ₹ 20 Lacs advance out of sale consideration. Thus only ₹ 26 Lacs could be said to have been invested out of advance received out of sale consideration. As per provisions of Section 11(1A)(a), the capital gain deemed to applied for charitable purposes would be the sum invested (Rs. 26 lacs in this case). The cost of asset sold (which is ₹ 551000/- in this case). Hence, the allowable deduction is only ₹ 20,49,000/- which the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted and addition of ₹ 13,26,400/- was rightly sustained as per provisions of Section 11(1A)(a) - ITA No. 717/Del/2015, C. O. No. 283/Del/2015 - - - Dated:- 2-8-2016 - Shri H. S. Sidhu, Judicial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be governed by the instructions on this subject, operative at the time when such appeal was filed. 4. It is not in dispute that the Board s instruction or directions issued to the income-tax authorities are binding on those authorities, therefore, the Department should have withdrawn/ not pressed the present Appeal, in view of the aforesaid instructions since the tax effect in the instant Appeal is less than the amount of ₹ 10 lacs, prescribed in the above said CBDT s Instructions. 5. Keeping in view the CBDT Instruction No. 21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015, I am of the view that the Revenue should have withdrawn/ not pressed the instant appeal before the Tribunal. I am also of the view that the said Instructions are applicable for the pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in Tribunal. Accordingly, the Revenue s Appeal is dismissed. ASSESSEE S CROSS OBJECTION NO. 283/DEL/2015 6. The assessee has raised the following grounds in its Cross Objection:- 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing officer has erred in assessing the sum of ₹ 33,75,400 being 'profit from sale of land, as income from Capi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Ld. CIT(A), Meerut vide his impugned order dated 26.11.2014 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 9. Against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Assessee has filed the Cross Objection before the Tribunal. 10. During the hearing, Ld. Counsel of the Assessee stated that the Assessing officer has erred in assessing the sum of ₹ 33,75,400 being 'profit from sale of land, as income from Capital Gain in the hands of the assessee when the amount of capital gain had been invested in accordance of the provisions of Section 11(IA) of the Act. He further stated that the Assessing Officer has not allowed the deduction under section 11(IA) of the Act and failed to appreciate the fact that although profit of sale of land being shown on the credit side of statement of profit and loss account is 'Income under the head Capital Gain still it qualifies for the investment linked deduction in accordance of the provisions of Section 11(1A) of the Act. Therefore the Income chargeable to tax in the hands of assessee having compiled with the provisions of Section 11(1A) is Nil. Lastly, Ld. Counsel of the assessee further stated that Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the assessee rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e made investments in new capital asset in form of FDs and New Building at Shalimar Garden-II, Village Pasonda to be used for running school and has claimed deduction u/s. 11(1A) out of capital gains arising on sale of assts. In my considered opinion in the facts and circumstances, the case of assessee is covered squarely by the decision of Mumbai ITAT supra as regards investments out of advance of sale receipts being eligible for deduction uls 11(1A). However, the quantum of allowable deduction requires some more deliberation. It is seen that the when the advance was given for new capital asset and FDs were purchased, the assessee had not received commensurate advance out of sale consideration. When assessee paid advance of ₹ 21 Lacs for purchase of new asset, it had received only ₹ 6 lacs towards sale consideration. Similarly, when FDs were purchased for ₹ 30 Lac, it had received another sum of only ₹ 20 Lacs advance out of sale consideration. Thus only ₹ 26 Lacs could be said to have been invested out of advance received out of sale consideration. As per provisions of Section 11 (lA) (a), the capital gain deemed to applied for char ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
