2014 (11) TMI 1161

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....considering that the A.O. could not have been expected to allow deductors beyond the purview of sec.48 of the I.T. Act. 3. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the legal constraints and thereby allowed the assessee's appeal on capital gains." 2. Briefly stated facts are that assessee is an individual, received an amount of Rs. 7,55,98,125 as sale consideration from sale of 1288 sq. yards of land and built-up area of 24 flats situated at Miyapur, Hyderabad. While calculating the long term capital gain, assessee claimed deduction from the sale consideration of the following amounts: (i) Infrastructure expenditure Rs. 24 lakhs (ii) Corpus Fund Rs. 06 lakhs (iii) Amount payable to builder towards Wood quality difference 24 x. Rs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....greement between the builder and the appellant, this clause is clearly stated in page nos. 2 and 3 of Annexure-II of the agreement dated 3rd November, 2005, which is as under : "......................That the First Party further agreed to pay the corpus fund and infrastructure amount and the difference amount for the teak wood used etc., will be paid to the Second Party before taking possession of the flats in various blocks as mentioned block wise. ........................................ ......................................... Agreed cost of infrastructure per flat Rs. 1,00,000 Corpus fund per flat Rs. 25,000/- Extra cost for teak wood Rs. 6,000/- per flat 4.4. As per the obligation, the appellant had fulfilled the reimbu....