TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 1258
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e-3 is opposed to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the consideration determined by the AO amounting to Rs. 1,08,13,930/- at the rate of 1238/- per sq.ft as per the cost of construction provided by the builder in their letter dated: 10-03- 2014 as against the FMV of the 55% of the land as on the date of JDA. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have not held the Builders cost as basis for determination of the consideration of the 55%of the land transferred measuring 3153 sqft without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the FMV as on the date of JDA based on the value of Sub-Registrar was the consideration in respect of the 55%of land transf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of residential Flats on the above Site. 04. The Assessee submits that as per the terms of JDA the Assessee had agreed to transfer 55% of the undivided portion of land measuring 3153 sq.ft out of the total extent of 5733 sq.ft and the remaining undivided portion of land measuring 2580 sq.ft was retained by the Assessee. The proposed built-up area was about 19836 sq.ft., out of which the Assessee was entitled to 45% of the Built-up area measuring 8735 sq.ft., in exchange of 3153 sq.ft of undivided portion of land and the Developer was entitled to 55% of built-up area measuring 11100 sq.ft. 05. The Ld. AO issued a notice u/s. 148 of the Act, in order to assess the income of the assessee. In the course of the Scrutiny Assessment proceedings....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are distinguishable from the facts in the case of Ved Prakash Rakhra (2015) 370 ITR 762 (KAR). 09. The Ld. CIT(A)-3 got misdirected by mis-reading the judgment of the Honble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Ved Prakash Rakhra (2015) 370 ITR 762 (KAR). The Ld. CIT(A) has mis-read the facts of the Assessee's case and erroneously held that the facts of the Assessee's case are different from the facts in the case of Ved Prakash Rakhra (2015) 370 ITR 762 (KAR), ignoring the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka . The Ld. CIT(A) has held that the f ac t s of the Assessees case were different than the facts in the case of Ved Prakash Rakhra wherein the consideration was specified in the JDA but in the case of Assessee n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ion shown in the joint development agreement for development of the proper ty should be taken into account in working out the sale consideration for purposes of section 45 and not the sum actually spent." 12. The Assessee submits that the non-mentioning of the price of the land transferred could not have been held as ground to hold the differentiation in facts. The Assessee submits even though no specific price was mentioned in JDA, the FMV as on the date of JDA shall be the consideration for the exchange of 55% of land. The Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the facts that the consideration of Rs. 66,00,000/- mentioned in the case of Ved Prakash Rakhra represented the FMV as on the date of JDA and similarly the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held ....