2018 (9) TMI 788

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Appellant is perverse, illegal and unsustainable on facts and in law. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in sustaining the action of the Assessing Officer in bringing to tax the alleged capital gains in the A.Y under consideration. 3. Without prejudice, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in adopting the cost of land surrendered for development at Rs. 5.98 crores. The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that what the appellant got on surrender of land is the super structure, which should be the basis for arriving at the value of land surrendered in the development agreement. 4. Without prejudice to above ground, the Commissioner (Appeals) further failed to appreciate ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he case of the other co-owners had come up before the Tribunal in ITA Nos.1583 to 1592/Hyd/2017 and this Tribunal at para 8.1 has clearly held that the capital gains is chargeable to tax only in the A.Y 2003-04 as it was held that the actual transfer took place in the year 2003. Therefore, according to him, the capital gains cannot be brought to tax in the A.Y 2010-11. 3. The learned DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below. 4. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the Coordinate Bench in the case of other co-owners has held as under: "8.1 Before us, the question raised is, in the case of 'JDA" transaction, at what point of time, capital gain arises. It is settled....