AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 1023
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate proceedings in the remand report had brought it on record that the assessee by his suo motto submissions had conceded to the fact that he is the sole recipient of the entire sale consideration of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- and further that there was no sharing of the sale consideration with shri.Rradeep Ravi Sood.. (ii) The contention of the assessee that the payments were made to the entities M!s.Kwality Frozen Foods Pvt Ltd and M!s. Magnum Holdings Pvt Ltd., also cannot be accepted on face value since no relevant corroborative details were filed by them. (iii) Shri. Vikram Seth, Director of the entity Kwality Frozen foods Pvt Ltd.(now known as Graviss Holding Pvt.Ltd.), in his statement recorded under oath u/s 131 of the Act stated that the details of acquisition of the property and the proof of payment made was not available with him. He further stated that the company had never take possession of the property and no taxes/ levies were paid to local authorities but the company. (iv) No compliance by way of requsite submission was made by M/s. Magnum Holdings Pvt Ltd, Hon'ble 2) The appellant prays that the order of the A.O. should be restored a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the AO all these transactions were not genuine as these were entered into to circumvent the tax on long term capital gain on the ground that agreement with said parties was also not registered and ultimately he recomputed long term capital gain as under and added the same to the income of the assessee:- "Sale consideration as per conveyance deed dated 11/12/2009 1,50,00,000 Fair Market value as on 1-4-1981 Rs.35,300 With Indexation @ 632/100 Rs.2,23,096 2,23,096 1,47,76,904 Less: Investment u/s. 54F on payment against new flat No.2902, 29th floor, Lodha Primero of Carpet Area of 1217 sq. ft. alongwith car parking space No.5052, 5053, 5053A: On 18-7-2009 22,15,556 On 24-6-2009 14,77,037 Registration charges 31,520 Stamp Duty 14,60,120 51,84,639 Long Term Capital Gain 95,92,265 5. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal after considering the various contentions of the assessee of the assessee by observing and holding as under: "6.1 There is no denying the fact that the assessee was the sol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... If this transaction had not materialised, there would perhaps have been no question of capital gains. The sale would then have taken place at the rate of Rs. 29 per sq. yard as against Rs. 51 per sq. yard. One way of looking at the problem could be to say that the full value of the consideration in this case was not the apparent consideration, i.e., Rs. 2,58,672, but Rs. 2,23,168 (i.e., 2,58,672 minus Rs. 35,504). The Legislature, while using the expression "full value of consideration", in our view, has contemplated both additions to as well as deductions from the apparent value. What it means is the real and effective consideration, that apart, so far as clause (i) of section 48 is concerned, we find that the expression "for the transfer". The expression used is "the expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer". The expression "in connection with such transfer" is, in our view, certainly wider than the expression "for the transfer". Here again. We are of the view that any amount the payment of which is absolutely necessary to effect the transfer will be an expenditure covered by this clause. In other words, if, without removing any encumbrance in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the first appellate authority has grossly erred in accepting the contention of the assessee that M/s. Kwality Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Magnum Holdings Pvt. Ltd. were having partial interest in the said property and payments made to the tune of Rs. 85 lakhs is covered under the provisions of section 48(i) of the Act. The Ld. D.R. heavily relied on the order of AO and submitted that all these co called beneficial interests were created by entering into an agreement which was not even registered and thus cannot be treated as genuine. Finally, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the order of Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of AO be restored. 7. The Ld. A.R. submitted before us that the said two entities were having beneficial interest in the property and without their prior consent/permission, the said property could not have been sold. The ld AR argued that the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly appreciated the facts of the case after having gone through the various documents and deeds as incorporated in para 5.1 and 5.2 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. A.R. also submitted that even in the remand proceedings the additional evidences which were remanded to the AO were confirmed b....