TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 955
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se be granted by assessing the long- term capital gain at Rs. 1,53,56,462 only as declared by the assessee. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the learned Assessing Officer in applying the provisions of section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and adopting the sale consideration at Rs. 6,12,70,120 against the actual sale consideration of Rs. 6,00,00,000. The action of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by taking the sale consideration at Rs. 6,00,00,000 for computing the capital gains. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the learned Assessing Officer in not allowing indexation on the amount of Rs. 13,97,120 paid for acquiring possession of strip of land for computing the long-term capital gain. The action of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may pleas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Deputy CIT in [2010] 38 DTR (A. T.) 19 (Pune) ITA No. 1543/PN/2007. 4.1. On the contrary, the learned Departmental representative opposed the submissions of the assessee on this issue. 4.2. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find that the hon'ble co-ordinate Bench in ITA No.1543/PN/2007 in the case of Rahul Constructions v. Deputy CIT in [2010] 38 DTR (A. T.) 19 (Pune) has held as under : "We find that the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Asst. CIT v. Harpreet Hotels P. Ltd. vide ITA Nos. 1156-1160/Pn/2000 and relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee had dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue where the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had deleted the unexplained investment in house construction on the ground that the difference between the figure shown by the assessee and the figure of the DVO is hardly 10 per cent. Similarly, we find that the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Kaaddu Jayghosh Appasaheb, vide ITA No. 441/Pn/2004 for the assessment year 1992-93 and relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee following the decision of the Jammu and Kashmir High ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....04] 10 SCC 779. Since during the entire period of possession of the strip of land by the assessee, there was no intrusion/claim of whatsoever nature, the assessee was the owner of the strip without doubt. In view of this, when the strip of land was in the ownership of the assessee since beginning, therefore cost has to be allowed as deduction with reference to the date since asset was owned by the assessee. 5.2. On the contrary, the learned Departmental representative opposed the submissions and submitted that the piece of land was allotted in the year 2008 so the ownership related to the land should be reckoned from that date and not the date as claimed by the assessee. The assessee has not brought on record any material suggesting that the assessee was the legal owner of the strip of land before the same was regularised by Nagar Nigam or by any court of law. Under these facts, the ground raised is devoid of any merit. 5.3. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The assessee is claiming to be the owner of the land even prior to the allotment made by the concerned authority, thus the assessee i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... section 55(2) wherein fair market value of the property can be replaced as on April 1, 1981. This fair market value has to be determined with reference to comparable contemporary instances of nearby location. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has not given any reason for rejecting the comparable instance. He submitted that before the authorities below, letter dated April 1, 1981, conveying the rate of Rs. 110 per sq. yard was submitted. He further submitted that it is a settled law that the income liable to be taxed has to be worked out in accordance with the law as in force. In support of the contention, reliance is placed on the co-ordinate Bench decision rendered in the case of Asst. CIT v. Rupam Impex in ITA No. 472/RJT/2014. 6.2. On the contrary, the learned Departmental representative submitted that the assessee herself has adopted the value and she cannot blow hot and cold at the same time. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has given a finding of fact, which is not rebutted by the assessee by placing any material on record. 6.3. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the authorit....