TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (6) TMI 399
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A), Mumbai, has erred in deciding that the tenancy rights in the property at Room No.2197, Building No.44 of Gandhi Nagar Pranav Co-operative Society Ltd., Bandra(E), Mumbai- 400 051 were owned jointly by the assessee and his partner in the firm M/s.Furnin Furnin Services 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Mumbai, has erred in basing his decision merely upon an affidavit filed by the assessee, which was never filed before the A.O. and the contents of which were not borne out by the facts on record. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Mumbai, has erred in basing his decision on additional ev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... details from the assessee. The assessee filed a detailed reply dt. 23.11.2010 and explained that the impugned property was purchased on 29.8.1995 from Ms. Jessy Johnson Manath for Rs. 11 lakhs. Thereafter the said property was introduced by the assessee as capital in the firm M/s. Furnin Furnin Service Centre where assessee was having 50% of share in profit. The firm was dissolved on 31.3.2008. However, prior to the dissolution of the said property was sold and the consideration was divided equally between both the partners. Both the partners declared 50% of the capital gain on sale of tenancy property in respect of their shares. 3.1. The AO was of the opinion that the said property was appearing in the balance sheet of the partnership ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ale consideration is to be assessed in the hands of the assessee and went on to tax the entire capital gain from the sale of the impugned property in the hands of the assessee. 4. The assessee strongly agitated this matter before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the facts of the case held as under: "I have considered the facts and perused the material on record. I find that the initial investment in the property was made by both the partners equally. Though the purchase deed was made in name of the appellant due to society by laws but it was agreed that the property will belong to firm. They have also executed an affidavit to effect that both the partner will have equal shares in the property. The asset was brought in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erused the orders of the lower authorities. In our considerate view, the Ld. CIT(A) has given a categorical finding on the issue of taxability of capital gain. We do not find any reason to tamper with such categorical findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Ground No. 1,2 & 3 are accordingly dismissed. 8. The second grievance of the Revenue relates to allowance of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act in respect of the amount of the deposit of Rs. 25,14,208/- under Capital Gains Accounts Scheme. 9. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that he has sold 300 shares of Shyamkarna Enterprises to HDIL for sale consideration of Rs. 50 lakhs. The assessee furnished computation of capital gains in this respect. The assessee has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the deduction of deposit of Rs. 24,14,208/-. 10. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted all the necessary details relating to deposit in capital gains account scheme. The Ld. CIT(A) was convinced that the assessee has invested under capital gains scheme within the time limit prescribed i.e. before filing of the return. As the return was filed in electronic form, there is no requirement of law to submit documents alongwith return of income, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) was of the firm belief that denial of deduction u/s. 54F is without any basis and accordingly directed the AO to allow the claim of deduction made by the assessee in capital gains account scheme. 11. Before us, the Ld. Departmental Representative strongly relied upo....