TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cuments. In the absence of any documentary evidence in support of assesee s claim that the property sold in question was not a depreciable asset, we find no reason to interfere in the order of the ld.CIT(A). Appeal of the assessee is dismissed. - ITA No.2435(Bang)/2019 - - - Dated:- 29-5-2020 - Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member And Shri P.K. Gadale, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri S. Krishnaswamy, CA For the Revenue : Smt. , JCIT ORDER PER A.K.GARODIA, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee and the same is directed against the order of the ld.CIT(A)-Bangalore dated 30-09-2019 for the assessment year : 2016-17. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under; 1.The order of the learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es having BWSSB water supply connection RR No.S10-283. 4. The learned DCIT/CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the definition of a block of assets under Sec.50 of the Income Tax Act, 1960 includes only an asset in respect of which depreciation has been claimed under this Act and hence in the instant case no depreciation had been claimed on the asset as it was a largely a vacant land of 9600 Sq. Ft - further the definition of Block of asset under 2(11) of the Income Tax Act 1961 interalia includes Buildings, Machinery or plant or furniture in respect of which depreciation is prescribed. The asset in the instant case does not conform the definition of a block of assets. 5. The learned ACIT/CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in but in the return of income, the assessee has not declared any STCG, but the assessee has declared LTCG of ₹ 15,58,45,340/- after claiming indexed cost of purchase. The AO did not allow the claim of the assessee that the income in question is LTCG and he taxed the same as STCG to the extent of ₹ 16,34,34,975/-. 3. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 4. Before the ld. CIT(A), this was the submission that the asset sold in question was land and therefore, Sec.50 is not applicable because the land is not a depreciable asset. In para-5 of his order, it is noted by the ld. CIT(A) that from the details submitted, it is seen that Shri Gaddam Ramanna Reddy had contributed capital ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
