TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 478
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in treating the consideration of Rs. 32 lakhs as short term capital gain as against long term capital gain as claimed by the assessee 3) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not allowing the expenses incurred on transfer of residential flat of Rs. 60,000/- 3. The return of income was filed on 19.9.2008 declaring total income at Rs. 6,60,500/-. The return was selected for scrutiny. Accordingly, statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. While scrutinizing the return of income, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has declared income from Long term Capital gain and sale of flat. The assessee was asked to submit the details in respect of the sale of property and the expenses claime....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... same into an ownership right. Therefore, the assessee has rightly computed Long Term Capital gain on the sale of flat. 4.1. After considering the facts and the submissions, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that there were two transactions. One when the tenancy right was surrendered and the assessee got a new flat on ownership basis. Second transaction took place when the assessee sold the new flat for a consideration of Rs. 32 lakhs. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that for obtaining the tenancy right, the assessee did not pay any cost. Further on surrendering of tenancy right, the assessee got a new asset in the form of a flat. The assessee became the owner of the said flat on 15.7.2005. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that since the flat was sol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt since 1960 and that tenancy rights was converted into an ownership rights in a flat by virtue of an agreement with the builder. The flat was subsequently transferred giving rise to Long Term Capital Gain. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Abrar Alvi (247 ITR 312) has confirmed the order of the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal has held that what was transferred vide sale deed was not tenancy right but the building itself and therefore, cost of ownership rights was to be allowed as deduction for working out capital gains. Similarly, the Tribunal , Mumbai Benches , in the case of Balmukund P. Acharya Vs ITO 133 TTJ 640, has held that asset sold by the assessee is the property which was given to him on surrender of ten....