TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 1029
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... law by deleting the addition of Rs. 20,49,000/- out of Rs. 33,75,400/- made by the AO on account of capital gain. Therefore, the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 20,49,000/- be restored and the relief given by the ld. CIT(A) be cancelled in this issue. 2 The order of the CIT(A) be cancelled and the order of the AO be restored. 3 Appellant craves leave to modify/ amend or add anyone or more grounds of appeal. 3. I have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. From the above, I find that the tax effect in the Revenue's Appeal is less than Rs. 10,00,000/-, therefore, the Department's Appeal is not maintainable, in view of the Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015 issued vide F.No. 279/Mi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he CBDT Instruction No. 21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015, I am of the view that the Revenue should have withdrawn/ not pressed the instant appeal before the Tribunal. I am also of the view that the said Instructions are applicable for the pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in Tribunal. Accordingly, the Revenue's Appeal is dismissed. ASSESSEE'S CROSS OBJECTION NO. 283/DEL/2015 6. The assessee has raised the following grounds in its Cross Objection:- "1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing officer has erred in assessing the sum of Rs. 33,75,400 being 'profit from sale of land, as income from Capital Gain in the hands of the assessee when the amount of capital gain h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondent prays to delete the balance addition of Rs. 13,26,400/- sustained by learned CIT(A) as the same is unjustified in law. The Respondent craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid cross objections at any time before or at the time of hearing of the matter." 7. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee-society registered with the Registrar of Society, Uttar Pradesh and renewal was granted on 8.6.2010. The Society has been granted Registration u/s. 12AA of the I.T. Act, 1961 by the then ld. CIT, Merrut vide order dated 24.11.1984. In this case assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 7.3.2013 in which addition of Rs. 33,75,400/- was made under the head ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... restricted to Rs. 20,49,000.00 only instead of allowing full relief to the assessee as the complete amount has been invested in accordance with section 11(1A) of the Act. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the intent of the section 11(1A) is on the investment and not on the source of the investment. When the assessee being a charitable society being audited under the provisions of the Act, has invested the sum as per section 11(1A) of the Act, it is eligible for deduction under section 11(1A) of the Act. In view of the above, he requested to delete the balance addition of Rs. 13,26,400 sustained by learned CIT(A). 11. On the other hand, ld. DR has strongly opposed the Cross Objection and stated that since the Revenu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en-II, Village Pasonda to be used for running school and has claimed deduction u/s. 11(1A) out of capital gains arising on sale of assts. In my considered opinion in the facts and circumstances, the case of assessee is covered squarely by the decision of Mumbai ITAT supra as regards investments out of advance of sale receipts being eligible for deduction uls 11(1A). However, the quantum of allowable deduction requires some more deliberation. It is seen that the when the advance was given for new capital asset and FDs were purchased, the assessee had not received commensurate advance out of sale consideration. When assessee paid advance of Rs. 21 Lacs for purchase of new asset, it had received only Rs. 6 lacs towards sale c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le of assets. In my view in the facts and circumstances, the case of assessee is covered squarely by the decision of Mumbai ITAT decisions in the case of Shri Ramnagar Trust vs. Third ITO 13 ITD 426 (Mum) and ITAT as regards investments out of advance of sale receipts being eligible for deduction uls 11(1A). I also find that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that when the advance was given for new capital asset and FDs were purchased, the assessee had not received commensurate advance out of sale consideration. It is noted that when assessee paid advance of Rs. 21 Lacs for purchase of new asset, it had received only Rs. 6 lacs towards sale consideration. Similarly, when FDs were purchased for Rs. 30 Lac, it had received another sum of only Rs. 20....