2016 (11) TMI 1525

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cting the assessing officer to compute the income of the assessee at returned income without appreciating the facts of the case." 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was completed vide order dated 30.12.2010. While completing the assessment, the AO computed the capital gain at Rs. 70,76,335/- after giving deduction under section 54B and 54F of the Act on the ground that assessee during the year under appeal had sold a part of the land and the computation of capital gain was made on the DLC value of the land at Rs. 1,02,00,000/-. The assessee aggrieved by this order, preferred an ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... case of CIT vs. Sambhaji Nagar Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. (2015) 370 ITR 325 (Bombay). 4.2. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The undisputed facts are that the land in question was allotted to the assessee by the Government of India under the Rehabilitation Scheme. This fact is not refuted by the ld. D/R. The contention of the assessee is that where the cost of acquisition is NIL, no capital gains tax can be charged. In support of this contention, the ld. Counsel has placed reliance on various judicial pronouncements i.e. CIT vs. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.C. Srinivasa Setty has held as under :- " 11. What is contemplated is an asset in th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... reward, for instance jagirs from a ruler and the property passed on by inheritance to generations and the same is sold even though for a valuable consideration, in such a case because A had not acquired it at some cost in terms of money, it would not attract capital gain in such a transaction of sale, there being no 'gain' as such. Further, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. HH Sri Raja Rajagopala Thandaiman, 282 ITR 126 (Mad.) affirmed the view of the Tribunal by holding that there was no capital gain assessable in respect of transfer of the site and palace at Pudukkuttai belonging to the assessee for a consideration of Rs. 17,76,020/- on the ground that there was no cost of acquisition. Further, the Hon'ble Gujarat High....