2013 (11) TMI 832

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ground or add ground/s which may be necessary. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. Assessee, an individual, engaged in the business of Polishing of diamonds, filed his return on 20. 05. 2009, declaring total income at Rs. 1, 08, 267/-. AO finalised the assessment on 30. 12. 2010 u/s. 143(3) of the Act determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1, 40, 35, 750/-. 2. During the assessment proceedings, AO found that assessee had shown Nil income from Long Term Capital Gain(LTCG)ontransfer of tenancy rights, that he was tenant of a self-contained resid -ential premises on the Ground Floor of Patil Estate, Tardeo Road, Mumbai that Deshbhus....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....exchange was nothing but purchase of new property, that the assessee had paid consideration in kind by transferring his tenancy rights, that he had received the consideration for transfer of capita asset in kind i. e. three residential houses, that assessee was not entitled to claim exemption u/s 54 of the Act. Finally, he held that the entire LTCG amounting to Rs. 1. 39 Crores was taxable in the hands of the assessee. 3. Assessee preferred an appeal before the FAA. After considering the submissions made by the assessee and the documents filed along with the submissions, he directed the AO to file a remand report. AO submitted her report on 13. 09. 2011. After deliberating upon the remand report and the reply to the remand report filed b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ered as equivalent to performance of the condition in the eyes of law, that the dominating intention of the parties to the agreement and the assessee in specific, was not to consider the impugned agreement as conclusion of the contract, that a property in existence today could be transferred on a future date, but the property that would come into existence at a future date could not be transferred, that in the present case property was not received by the assessee. Finally, he held that the surrender of tenancy rights, as contemplated in clause-16 of the agreement, had not taken place during the year under consideration, that there was no taxable event giving rise to capital gain on account of the impugned agreement, that there was no taxab....