9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 934X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id and contrary to the provisions of law. Ground No. 2: Alternatively, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in considering Income from Business at Rs. 70,000/- as against Rs. 70,000/- as against Rs. 38,640. Ground No. 3: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) grossly erred in taxing interest income of Rs. 38,640/- under the head Income from Other Sources in Rs. 1,61,570/- and under the head Income from Business. Ground No. 4: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) grossly erred in considering the entire Long-term Capital Gains as Short-term Capital Gains and subjected the same to higher slab ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 3, 50,000/- being repairs & renovation. Despite giving copious opportunity, the assessee had not adduced any supporting evidence to substantiate his claim in regard to cost of acquisition and cost of repairs & renovation. Since no explanation/documentary evidence etc., was forthcoming from the assessee as regards to the working of Long Term Capital Gain, the assessee's claim for indexation of cost of acquisition and repair and renovation are declined and the entire sale consideration of Rs. 45, 00, 000/- was adopted as taxable short term capital gain. Further, as regards the business income shown by the assessee at Rs. 38,640/-, in the computation that the income so shown is based on Income & Expenditure account. However, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t issued by B.C. Shah, registered architect, it is seen that the fair market value of the property as on 1.4.1981 has been determined at Rs. 4,11,000/-. The comparison for valuation of the old building constructed in around 1950 to that of the valuation rates in 1982 -83 at Rs. 584 per sq.ft is illogical and hence cannot be accepted. The AO has also objected for valuing the property as on 1.4.1981 as the value of flats in Dinabad building would be more since a lift has been provided for use of upper floors i.e. 2Ild and 4lh floor. The assessee's flat is on the 2nd floor but there is no lift facility for the assessee. The AO has also pointed out in her remand report that the will of the father directing his elder son to pay a compensatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sources treating the same as income from business is also confirmed, rejecting these grounds of appeal. The AO has also disallowed deduction claimed for tax saving investments under the provisions of chapter VIA including tuition fees of Rs. 25,000/-, LIC premium of Rs. 30,508 and medi-claim premium of Rs. 22,508. The AO may verify the contentions of the appellant and if found true allow the claim statutorily. Subject to the above remark this ground is allowed for statistical purpose. Regarding levy of interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C amounting to Rs. 8,49,525/- which is mandatory and hence AO is justified in levying interest as mentioned above. Therefore, this ground of appeal is also dismissed. 6. Against the above order, assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
