TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 21
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing Officer (AO) determined the total income at Rs. 35,63,194/- and raised demand making various additions to the returned income. Assessee is contesting the following three issues: Ground : 2.1. Authorities below erred in assessing sale consideration Rs. 37.8 lakhs u/s. 50C of the act against actual amount received Rs. 36.83 lakhs. 2.2. Appellant contends SRO sale value is not a fair market value approved of law. 2.3. Authorities below ought to have noted difference between SRO value and actual sale value works out to 2.67% only which is permitted under law. 3. The issue in this ground is with reference to invoking of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act [Act]. AO has noticed that Sub- Registrar, Valuation mention in the Sale Deed on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 50C. I find no merit in assessee's contentions. Accordingly, the ground is rejected. Ground : 3.1. Authorities below erred in disallowing expenditure of Rs. 7.53 lakhs for construction of partition walls and toilets for sale of the office premises in 3 portions. 3.2. Authorities ought to have noted that appellant had purchased 9000 Sq feet of office area without internal partition walls and since large area could not be sold, appellant divided the area and sold them under 3 sale deeds. 3.3. Authorities below erred in holding that no evidence for bank withdrawals and construction of partition walls was furnished. 4. Ground No. 3 is on the issue of not allowing expenditure of Rs. 7.53 Lakhs incurred by assessee for construction ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the expenditure was incurred long back, assessee is not in a position to furnish any evidence to the satisfaction of the AO, however, it was submitted that assessee's husband being a civil contractor has developed the partitions and toilets which can be evidenced from the sale deeds and this expenditure was not spent by the developer as the assessee was to get only the bare-structure in the first floor. Ld. Counsel submitted that the sale deeds evidences the cost of improvement and accordingly, AO/CIT(A) should have allowed the expenditure. 4.2. Ld. DR, however, relied on the orders of the authorities to submit that no evidence was furnished in support of the cost of improvement. 4.3. I have considered the rival contentions and examined ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....full owner of the property and assessee with her son hold 1/4th share each. AO while completing the assessment notes down that there is no evidence with regard to her claim. Accordingly, entire rent of Rs. 5,97,400/- was brought to tax, even though, he stated that assessee will be allowed credit for the entire TDS. It was the contention that the TDS credit was not allowed. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same without any examination of the issues. 5.1. After considering the rival contentions, I am of the opinion that this issue requires examination by the AO. First of all, it has to be seen whether assessee and her son owns only 50% of the share of the property? If so, whether assessee's husband also owns any property as the submissions made befo....