2016 (4) TMI 1334

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. 7.00 Crores. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving her income from house property, trading in share as well as capital gain, filed her return of income for relevant Assessment Year (AY) on 30.03.2013 declaring total income at Rs. 1,03,39,200/. The return of income was selected for scrutiny and during the assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that assessee sold plot no. B-16admeasuring 1089 sq yards being part of plot no. 51 in Juhu Scheme, Vile Parle(W), Mumbai along with right to use FSI to Shri Babulal Khandelwal & Ors. The AO further observed that assessee computed LTCG taking sale consideration at Rs. 6,25,00,000/-, however, the registered sale-deed reflect the consideration of Rs. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e substituted by any other figure unless there is diversion at source by overriding title to the property. It is noted that he property for which the development agreement was entered by mother in Feb 2003 and an advance of Rs. 75 lacs was received. There was no part performance by the mother for the Said property as the possession of the property was never given by the mother to the developer and the developer did not get any development rights by paying Rs. 75 lacs to mother. There was no transfer u/s 2(47) of the property or any right by the mother to the developer as per the development agreement. After 7 months from the date of development agreement, the mother gifted the property to her daughter i.e. the appellant in Sept 2003 who ret....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... sale consideration of the appellant, then the sale consideration should have been mentioned at 6.25 Crores only in the final sale deed and in that case Rs. 75 lacs was taxable in hands of mother u/s 56(v). There was no encumbrance created by the donor to the property as no such encumbrance is mentioned in the gift deed also. Even if (without admitting) any encumbrance was created by taking money from the builder, such money having not refunded was taxable in hands of mother u/s 56(v). The appellant being absolute owner of the property was legally entitled to full sale consideration of 7 Crores as per the agreement but by not recovering the said advance of Rs. 75 lacs from her mother against the sale consideration of 7 Crores, it is the app....