TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 280
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Gains' or under the head 'Business' as an adventure in the nature of trade. 2. Briefly stated, assessee is a non-resident individual. He filed return of income for the impugned assessment year declaring income of Rs. 4,61,77,622/- after claiming deduction u/s. 54F of the Income Tax Act [Act]. The income mainly consists of Long Term Capital Gains on sale of land and Short Term Capital Gains on sale of building. The Assessing Officer (AO) on consideration of the transaction involved was of the opinion that assessee indulged in adventure in nature of trade in constructing a commercial complex and selling the same. Accordingly, he determined the head of income as 'Income from Business/Profession' as against income from c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion, the property was sold along with a structure thereon to M/s. Transtroy India Ltd., and at the instance of the buyer, assessee had to execute 25 sale deeds with value of land and building separately treated. Accordingly, the land cost was offered as Long Term Capital Gain and building sale was offered as Short Term Capital Gain. As against the Canadian Tax Case M.N.R. Vs. Tailor relied on by the AO, assessee relied on the following cases: a. G. Venkataswamy & Co Vs. CIT [35 ITR 594 (SC)]; b. CIT Vs. Kasturi Estates (P) Ltd., [62 ITR 578 (Madras)]; c. CIT Vs. MIM Mahalingam Chettiar [107 ITR 236 (Madras)]; d. CIT Vs. Delhi Apartments (P) Ltd., [352 ITR 322 (Delhi)]; e. CIT Vs. Suresh Chand Goyal [163 Tamnan 54 (MP) 298 ITR 277 (MP);....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....property at Plot No. 472, Road No. 36, Jubilee Hills amounting to Rs. 9,69,37,700/- on 01-12-2010 ie. within the stipulated time and since a residential property was purchased, claimed deduction u/s. 54F. The Ld.AO and CIT(A) noted that assessee has demolished the existing structure, constructed a commercial property and later on let out. Therefore, provisions of Section 54F do not apply. 6. After considering the rival contentions and perusing the facts on record, we are of the opinion that assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s. 54F as nature of property has turned out to be commercial property and accordingly, provisions of Section 54F do not apply. In view of this, assessee's grounds on this issue are rejected. 7. In the result....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-2008. Assessee has constructed a building, the nature of which is not clear from record. AO gives a finding that what assessee constructed was a commercial building. Assessee furnished a Municipal Corporation permission dt. 19-11-2005 indicating that it has started residential building and therefore, there is no commercial activity involved in it. This permission of plan was not filed before the AO and admittedly, filed before the CIT(A) only. CIT(A) did not refer it AO under rule 46A and therefore there is violation of said rule. CIT(A) came to the opinion that assessee intended to construct residential building and subsequent problems encountered on building the structure like Metro Corridor coming in the way of plot and non availability....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dential building as against the observation of the AO, that assessee has constructed a commercial building. Since the later approvals were not placed on record and copies of the 25 sale deeds are also not before us, we are not in a position to give any finding that assessee has intended to construct either a residential property or a commercial property. Since the basic information was not available on record, it is very difficult for this forum to approve either the action of AO who relied on Canadian Case Law as against various principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G. Venkataswamy & Co Vs. CIT (supra). Moreover, there seems to be no examination of plans, investments, correspondence by the AO in coming to a co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to purchase of lift also as that of cash, whereas the bill itself indicate that assessee has paid by various cheques. Since only provisions of 40A(3) are invoked, there is no question of treating the expenditure as 'non-genuine' as no amount was disallowed u/s. 37(1). Provisions of Section 40A(3) can only be invoked on the expenditure which was paid in cash, otherwise not disallowable u/s. 37(1). Since AO has not disallowed anything u/s. 37(1) we are of the opinion that CIT(A) is correct in treating the amount as 'genuine expenditure'. Accordingly, these grounds of Revenue are rejected. 12. Coming to the issue of addition of Rs. 12.50 Lakhs towards unexplained cash deposit, herein also the facts indicate that assessee has....