2016 (3) TMI 43

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....acts and circumstances of the case to the extent prejudicial to the interest of the appellant and at any rate is opposed to the principles of equity, natural justice and fair play. 2. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the order of the Assessing Officer is without jurisdiction. 3. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the Long Term Capital Gains of Rs. 67,59,827/-, assessed by the Assessing Officer. 4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in denying appellant's claim of the indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 20,40,794/- and deduction u/s.54F of RS.35,00,000/-. 5. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se, Shri P.S. Prabhakar, FCA appeared from time to time. Details called for were filed. After considering the details filed and discussing the case with the authorized representative, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) read with sec.147 of the Act on 20.09.2013 determining the total income at Rs. 68,63,890/-. 4.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the total consideration received by the assessee was Rs. 97,51,112/- as compensation for compulsory acquisition of his property by the National Highways Authority of India. In the revised return filed/ the assessee worked out the Long Term Capital Gain at Rs. 42,10,318/- after deducting indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 20,40,794/- and claiming ded....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stand. 1. CIT vs Sun Engineering Works Pvt. Limited 198 ITR 297 (SC). 2. Caixa Economica De Goa210 ITR 719(Bom). 3.Chettinad Cement Corporation Pvt. Limited 147 ITR 57 (Mad) & 200 ITR 320(SC). The Assessing Officer rejected the arguments of the assessee and disallowed the claim of cost of improvements and additional investment in the new property. Thus the Assessing Officer worked out the Long Term Capital Gain at   67,59,827/- against the admitted LTCG of   42,10,318/-. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer against which the assessee is in appeal. 5. The ld. AR submitted that inadvertently the assessee declared lower capital gain by showing less sales consideration and also the asse....