2014 (3) TMI 58

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....,00,000/- which was paid to Samyak Erectors Pvt. Ltd. and claimed as deduction of expenditure incurred in connection with the transfer.     2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the alternate contention that the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- be treated as cost of improvement.     3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in not adjudicating upon the 2nd ground of appeal (Ground no. 2) and consequently erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer of calculating the indexed cost of acquisition of inherited asset, from the date on which the asset was held by the assessee instead of from the date of acquisition by the previous owner." 3. Ground No. 1 & 2 regarding....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the plot of land transfer to a developer and in case any charge or encumbrances is found the assessee is liable to ward off of the same. He has further submitted that the payment was made to the consenting party being in occupation of part of the property in question and therefore, the payment was made in connection with transfer of the asset in question. The payment in fact was made for removal of settled hutments and therefore the assessee to discharge its liability to remove the encumbrances has incurred this expenditure which is allowable. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R has submitted that the agreement in question does not speak about any payment to the consenting party and therefore, there is no such liability as per the agreement. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f expenditure in connection with transfer. The Ld. A.R counter the argument of Ld. D.R and submitted that the assessee received part of the sale consideration in the next year and only subsequent to the payments in question towards relocation of hutments. Therefore, the Ld. A.R urged that when the entire capital gains has been assessed in the year under consideration then these payment is also allowable in the year under consideration. It is pertinent to note that the genuineness of payment has not been disputed by the authorities below and even the purpose of payment is also not question by the A.O as well as CIT(A). The disallowance has been made on the ground that the transfer/development agreement does not speak about such payment. When....