9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 627X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee has preferred appeals on following grounds : "Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, your appellant submits herewith the following grounds of appeal (which are taken up without prejudice to each other) for your sympathetic consideration: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in denying deduction u/s 54 to the Appellant by treating the Long Term Capital Gain arising on sale of old property as Short Term Capital Gain without properly appreciating the documents and submissions made by the Appellant during the assessment proceedings. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in carrying out addition of Rs.3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. The assessee was examined to justify an applicability of the Section 56 of the Act for the sale of old property and further the claim of the assessee of deduction under section 54 of the Act. 4. Assessee submitted that computation of long term capital gain has been erroneously made and correct tax liability may be determined by applying provisions of Section 50C and deduction under Section 54 may be granted. 5. The Assessing Officer found that the property sold by the assessee is a short term capital gain for the reason that purchase agreement was executed on 23/12/2011, project commencement certificate issued by the municipal Corp. On 12/12/2011. The allotment letter submitted shows that assessee was allotted the property on 2/7/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cordingly, he computed the short term capital gain of Rs. 31,14,300/- and disallowed deduction under Section 54 of the Act. Thus, assessment order was passed on 20/12/2016 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 36,14,219/-. 6. Assessee aggrieved with that order preferred the appeal before learned CIT (A) who confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by appellate order dated 30/03/2022. Therefore, assessee is aggrieved by the appellant order. 7. The learned authorized representative vehemently submitted that issue is squarely covered in favor of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in ITA No. 1459 of 2016 dated 22 January, 2019 in case of Principle Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Mumbai versus Vembu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arely covered in the favour of the assessee by the decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in case of principal Commissioner of income tax vs Vembu Vedhyanathan in ITA number 1459 of 2016 dated 22 January 2019 [2019] 101 taxmann.com 436 (Bombay) wherein the honourable High Court after considering the circular issued by the central board of direct taxes has held that the allotment letter by the builder is the date of acquisition of the property as the period of holding for the purpose of determining whether the asset is a long-term capital asset or a short-term capital asset, is to be taken therefrom. Honourable Supreme Court has dismissed the special leave petition filed by the by the revenue in [2019] 108 taxmann.com 339 (SC)/ [2019] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
