9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -2018. The ground of appeal raised by the assessee is as under: "1. The order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 25.05.2023 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1053164578(1) for the above mentioned Assessment Year is contrary to law, fact and in circumstances of the case. 2. The NFAC, Delhi erred in confirming the disallowance of claim of deduction under Section 54 of the Act to the tune of Rs. 1,61,99,820/- (in the name of the wife) as part of the computation of Long Term Capital Gains without assigning proper reasons and justification. 3. The NFAC, Delhi erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 40,00,000/being the payment made to builders through RTGS as part of computation of Long Term Capital Gains without assigning proper reaso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w." 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs. 7,11,320/- under the capital gains in respect of sale of immovable property at West Mambalam, Chennai for the sale consideration of Rs. 5,05,00,000/-. The assessee in the computation has taken a cost of acquisition at Rs. 95,59,000/- and claimed deduction of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- for investment on property on his own name and another deduction claimed for another property of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- in the name of his wife Smt. R. Gayathri. The A.O in the assessment order has allowed indexed cost of acquisition only of Rs. 11,68,039/- and deduction u/s. 54 of the Act of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- in respect of investment made on his name thus, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act in respect of payment of Rs. 40,00,000/- paid to builder in respect of residential unit paid in his name and exemption claimed in respect of investment made in the name of his wife. As regard to claim of exemption u/s. 54 of the Act addition of Rs. 40,00,000/-, the assessee has submitted addition evidence in the form of bank statement of the builder in whose account Rs. 40,00,000/- was credited, the assessee has required to admit the above evidence. 3. The first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No.2 of assessee's appeal is disallowance of deduction u/s. 54 of the Act in respect of reinvestment of capital gains derived from transfer of original asset. The A.O has also disallowed deduction u/s. 54 of the Act on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim deduction u/s. 54 of the Act and thus, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and reject the ground taken by the assessee. 7. The next issue came up for our consideration from ground Nos.3 & 4 of assessee's appeal is disallowance of further investment of Rs. 40,00,000/- claimed by the assessee while computing LTCG derived from transfer of property. The A.O has not considered additional payment made by the assessee to the builder for construction of building and further improvement in the property on the ground that the assessee could not furnish any evidences including payment details and bills for improvement to the building. 8. It was the arguments of the Ld. counsel for the assessee that the assessee has filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
