2017 (1) TMI 182
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e had purchased the agriculture lands before sale of agriculture land on which capital gain arised, ignoring the facts that the new assets i.e. agriculture lands, though were purchased before the date of sale of old asset, the investments made were out of earnest money received as part of consideration received before sale. The CIT(A) has also erred in upholding the action of the A.O. The Hon'ble ITAT Pune Bench Pune is requested to allow the deduction of Rs. 8,10,449/- u/s.54B as claimed. 2. The CIT (A) has erred in holding, as stated in para-5 of his order dated 28.09.2015, that only investments made after the date of sale transaction attracting capital gain are eligible for deduction u/s.54B. The decision of the CIT(A) is contrary ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Rs. 283690/- treating it as made on agreed basis ignoring the fact that due to inability to reconcile the figures of purchases as per TCS certificates and as per books of accounts, the appellant assessee had to agree for addition of G.P. at 10% of difference of Rs. 1004150/ - in purchases. In para 5 of assessment order and para 6 of the order of the Hon'ble CIT(A) it is stated that GP addition of Rs. 283690/- is made and that GP on un-reconciled figure has been taken on the basis of gross profit ratio shown by the appellant for which AR of the assessee agreed. The Hon'ble ITAT Pune is requested to reduce the addition by Rs. 183275/- retaining addition of Rs. 100415/- i.e. 10% difference in purchases as agreed. 3. Despite service....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fit on purchase of wine. The assessee was asked to reconcile the purchase figure of wine but he could not do so and he requested that gross profit on income of purchase should be taken. On second day of hearing also, similar request was made that income should be adopted @ 10% on purchases. However, the Assessing Officer made the addition as per gross profit shown by the assessee i.e. profit of Rs. 2,83,690/- was added to the income of assessee on agreed basis. 6. The CIT(A) noted the contention of assessee vis-à-vis denial of deduction under section 54B of the Act that part consideration was received prior to the execution of sale deed, which in turn, was invested for purchase of land. However, the assessee failed to furnish any ev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns of section 54B of the Act are very clear that the deduction is allowable in case the asset is purchased within period of two years after the date of sale. 9. In the facts of the present case, the assessee had sold the agricultural land on 04.11.2010 and as per the provisions of section 54B of the Act, the investment has to be made within period of two years after the date of sale. Since the assessee had purchased the new agricultural land on 16.07.2010 and on 30.09.2010, there is no merit in the claim of assessee for deduction under section 54B of the Act. Another point which was raised by the assessee was that the investment for purchase of new land out of advance received against the sale of agricultural land. First of all, the invest....