TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>ITAT rules on capital gains, limits indexation, mandates interest.</h1> <h3>Income-tax Officer, Ward – 7 (1), Hyderabad Versus Shri Khaja Hasnuddin</h3> Income-tax Officer, Ward – 7 (1), Hyderabad Versus Shri Khaja Hasnuddin - TMI Issues Involved:1. Nature of receipt from Nagarjuna Construction Company Ltd (NCCL) – whether it is capital gains or income from other sources.2. Determination of the purchase price and its indexation for capital gains calculation.3. Levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Detailed Analysis:Nature of Receipt from NCCLThe primary issue was whether the receipt of Rs. 85,05,000 from NCCL should be treated as capital gains or income from other sources. The CIT(A) initially treated the receipt as income from other sources, but on appeal, the ITAT Hyderabad held that the entire receipt should be assessed substantively in the hands of the assessee. The ITAT directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to re-examine the nature of the receipt and consider the assessee’s claim regarding payments made to Sri Ali Asghar Ceizure and litigation expenses.Upon reassessment, the AO treated the receipt as income from other sources, arguing that the assessee did not provide material evidence to show that the receipt was for relinquishing rights over the property. The CIT(A), however, observed that the assessee had an interest in the property from 1986 and had negotiated its sale to NCCL, thus constituting long-term capital gains. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)’s view, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and confirming that the receipt should be treated as capital gains.Determination of Purchase Price and IndexationThe CIT(A) restricted the purchase price to 51% of Rs. 30,00,000, amounting to Rs. 15,30,000, and allowed indexation on Rs. 15,00,000 only. The assessee contended that the entire Rs. 30,00,000 should be considered for indexation. The ITAT examined the agreement of sale and found that only Rs. 15,00,000 was confirmed as paid to Sri Ali Asghar Ceizure, with no evidence for the remaining Rs. 15,00,000. Consequently, the ITAT allowed the assessee to claim Rs. 15,00,000 as the cost of purchase with indexation benefit, rejecting the assessee’s claim for the additional Rs. 15,00,000.Levy of Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234CThe CIT(A) held that the levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C is mandatory and not appealable, but the assessee is entitled to consequential relief. The ITAT agreed, directing the AO to compute the interest based on the outcome of the order.ConclusionThe ITAT dismissed both the Revenue’s appeal and the assessee’s cross-objections. The receipt from NCCL was confirmed as long-term capital gains, and the purchase price for indexation was restricted to Rs. 15,00,000. The levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was deemed consequential and to be computed accordingly.
TaxTMI 