TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e had acquired a identifiable right in a specific property and also made the full payment thereof by 25/06/2008. The registration of purchase documents, in such a case, was to convey the ownership rights to the assessee which already existed in assessee’s favor by way of allotment letter dated 10/03/2008. As undisputed fact that the same property has been sold by the assessee during impugned AY. This being the case, we have no hesitation in concurring with the stand of CIT(A), in this regard. Maintainability of appeal - Monetary limit - AO added entire sale consideration in the hands of the assessee without deducting there-from the cost of acquisition, which is clearly erroneous - HELD THAT:- The computations as placed on record by AR re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts and circumstances are similar to the case of assessee. The assessment for impugned AY was framed by Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle-3, Thane [AO] u/s 143(3) on 27/02/2015 wherein the income of the assessee has been assessed at ₹ 187.41 Lacs as against returned income of ₹ 68.77 Lacs filed by the assessee on 30/07/2012. 2. The assessee being resident individual reflected income from salary, capital gain and other sources during the impugned AY. The only dispute under appeal is nature of capital gain by the assessee from sale of a flat situated at Sarvodaya Heights, Mulund . The aforesaid flat was sold for ₹ 118.64 Lacs vide registered sale document dated 02/08/2011. The said flat was pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ying ₹ 11,00,000/- on 10.03.2008, for total consideration of ₹ 83,30,000/-. The balance amounts of ₹ 29,00,000/- on 28.03.2008. ₹ 8,00,000/- on 25.06.2008 and ₹ 35,30,000/- on 25.06.2008 were also paid. However, the purchase agreement dated 29.09.2009 was registered on 30.09.2009 due to his service/employment compulsion. The appellant accordingly treated the holding period of right in the flat for more than 3 years (10.03.2008/26.06.2008 to 02.08.2011), and determined the resultant LTC Loss at ₹ 1,57,414/- against sale of the said flat after taking the benefit indexation of the cost of flat and declared the same in ROI. 6.1 The AO, however, did not accept the above dates i.e. 10.03.2008/26.06.2008 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orrect to treat the said right as Short term asset. It is further noticed that the AO had not even allowed the set off of cost of flat i.e. ₹ 83,30,000/- against sale consideration of ₹ 1,18,64,300/-, thereby wrongly assessed the entire sale consideration as STCG. Considering the facts in entirety, CBDT circular no. 471 dated 15.10.1986, various case laws, as relied by the Ld. AR, etc., in my considered view, the appellant had hold the right in the said flat for period of more than 3 years, therefore, the AO is hereby directed to allow the cost of land of ₹ 83,30,000/- and determined the correct amount of resultant gain, as per provision of the Act. All the grounds of appeal are allowed, accordingly. Aggrieved, the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
