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 →

Income Tax Officer, Ward 34 (2) , New Delhi Versus SH. Chander Shekhar

2017 (6) TMI 297 - ITAT DELHI

Computation of capital gains - transfer of property when sold in 2004 but registered only during the year 2008 - application of provision of 50C - Held that:- CIT(A) has observed that the assessee’s name in the deed of Transfer of lease hold rights was mentioned only because the original allotment was in his name, hence, the assessee did not have ownership of the said property during the year under consideration and therefore, there is no question of transaction of sale of the said property duri .....

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 price of the impugned property after applying the relevant provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is reversed. - Appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 430/DEL/2013 - Dated:- 5-6-2017 - SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Department : Sh. Anil Kr. Sharma, Sr. DR For The Assessee : Sh. Rajan Gupta CA ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM : This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the Order of .....

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 section. 3. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ignored the fact that transfer of the property took place in the year under consideration on 01.10.2008. 4. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) ignored the fact that during the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant failed to file any detail of the purchase of the property. 5. The Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciated the fact that it is the owner of the property who can .....

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 I.T. Act, 1961 was issued on 29.9.2010. Subsequently, notice u/s. 142(1) alongwith questionnaire issued on 21.1.2011, followed by another questionnaire dated 04.3.2011. In response to the notices issued, assessee s A.R. attended the proceedings from time to time. The assessee is engaged in retail trading and has declared his income u/s. 44AF at ₹ 1,78,308/- on the total turnover of ₹ 9,90,600/-. In this case an information with regard to sale of property for consideration of 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

assessed the income of the assessee at ₹ 1,00,60,670/- vide order dated 29.12.2011 passed u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 29.12.2011, the assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 06.11.2012 has deleted the addition and allowed the appeal of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved with the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO and reiterated the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

bmissions of the appellant, the observations made by the A.O. in the Assessment Order and the facts of the case. The appellant was allotted a residential plot on 19.01.2004 in Sector-105, Noida through lottery on payment of allotment money of ₹ 1,30,000/-. The total purchase price of the plot was ₹ 16,75,000/-. The appellant on 28.02.2004 entered into an Agreement to sell in respect of this plot with MIs Rosebud Construction Pvt. Ltd through its director Sh. Rajeev Sharma. The appell .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ansferred all his rights in the property on 28.2.2004 by signing an agreement to sell and receiving the payment of ₹ 1,30,000/- from the company M/s Rosebud Construction Pvt. Ltd and by appointing Sh. Sanjay Kumar known to the company as his GPA. Sale of property through OPA was a prevalent practice till 2011 when it was specifically banned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The fact that Sh. Sanjay Kumar ultimately transferred the lease hold rights through transfer deed dated 01.10.2008 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

#39;s name in the deed of Transfer of lease hold rights was mentioned only because the original allotment was in his name. Therefore, as far as the appellant is concerned, he did not have ownership of the said property during the year under consideration and therefore, there is no question of any transaction of sale of the said property during the year under consideration. Therefore, there was no question of any capital gains in the appellant's 'hands. The addition of ₹ 99,20,000/- .....

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