TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (8) TMI 697
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the appellant had rightly computed the cost inflation index accordingly an the impugned additions made in this regard in respect of computation of capital gains on sale of Rozipula land and Arradhalli land are uncalled for. iv) The ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the appellant had invested a sum of Rs.32,00,000/- in REC bonds subsequent to the sale of Arradhalli lands, i.e. out of the sale proceeds received by the appellant and thus the appellant is entitled to the benefit under section 4EC of the Act. v) The ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that with regard to the claim of benefit under sec.54EC of the Act, the appellant had produced sufficient documents before the CIT(A) and thus the claim as made by the appellant under sec.54EC was liable to be allowed. vi) The ld. CIT(A) after considering the facts and supporting documents furnished by the appellant before the CIT(A) and thus the claim as made by the appellant under sec.54EC was liable to be allowed. vi) The ld. CIT(A) after considering the facts and supporting documents furnished by the appellant b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p; 3.2 As regards ground nos.2,3,4 & 5 learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is not interested to pursue the same. These grounds are accordingly rejected as not pressed. 4. Ground nos.6 & 7; The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had claimed an amount of Rs.11,77,019/- as business expenditure. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was required to produce expenditure vouchers. On verification of the same, the AO found that the expenditure is partly supported by self vouchers and partly involve an element of personal expenditure. He also held that some of the expenses were not fully vouched, and that many of the vouchers were not signed by persons receiving the amount and the self vouchers were not supported by the supporting bills or evidences. He therefore, disallowed an amount of Rs.2,35,404/- being 20% of the expenditure claimed and brought it to tax. 4.1 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who restricted the disallowance to 10% of the claim of expenditure and the assessee is in appeal before us against the confirmation of 10% of the disallowance. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e other expenditure like telephone charges, traveling, office expenses, conveyance etc., we agree with the findings of the AO and the CIT(A) that they might involve an element of personal expenditure. Therefore, we confirm the disallowance restricted by the CIT(A) to 10% of these expenditure only. The assessee's grounds of appeal no.6 and 7 are accordingly partly allowed. 6.1 Coming to the additional grounds of appeal nos.1 & 2 the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee's husband had purchased a property in the year 1991- 92 and later on, on his demise, the assessee had inherited the land. She submitted that this land was sold by her in the year 2002-03 and the assessee has offered the income under the head 'Long term capital gains" and also claimed exemption u/s 54EC of the IT Act, 1961. She submitted that while computing the capital gains from the sale of the said property the date of acquisition should be considered as 1991-92 by considering the period the previous owner i.e. the assessee's husband held the property by virtue of Sec.2(42A)(b) r.w.s.49 of the IT Act, whereas the AO has taken the year 2002-03 as the date of acquisi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ift or will...iii) By succession, inheritance or devolution, then the cost of acquisition of the asset shall be deemed to be the cost for which the previous owner of the property acquired it, as increased by the cost of any improvement of the assets incurred or borne by the previous owner of the assessee as the case may be. However, we find that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) have considered the issue in accordance of Sub-sec.1 of Sec.49 of the IT Act. After examining the assessee's case u/s 49(1) of the Act, the AO is required to give the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition in accordance with the Explanation (iii) to Sec.48. In view of the same, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remand the issue to the file of the AO for reconsideration of the issue in accordance with law after considering the documents produced by the assessee in support of her contention that the property devolved on her after the death of her husband. The AO may also call for any documents required by him before concluding the issue and the asseseee shall co-operate with the AO for expeditious conclusion of the proceedings. However, if it is found that the property has devolve....