TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 1257
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irmation of both income from long term capital gains and short term capital gains. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed her return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 on 23.02.2016 admitting income of Rs. 3,57,400/-. As per the information available with the Department that the assessee sold an immovable property (land & building) for a sale consideration of Rs. 42,68,880/- as against the guideline value of Rs. 44,69,000/- during the financial year 2013-14. As the said transaction attracts the provision of section 50C and for the reason that the assessee has declared the sale value in her capital gain workings at Rs. 42,68,880/- instead of Rs. 44,69,000/-, a notice under section 148 of the Inco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9.09.2013. The closing balance available as on 31.03.2014 of this bank account was shown in the balance sheet of assessee's husband and therefore, it is considered that this bank account is related to Assessee's husband Shri M. Ayyasamy only. Further, it is verified that as per the capital account filed by the assessee as on 31.03.2014, the assessee has gifted entire sale consideration of Rs. 42,68,880/- received on transfer of original asset to her husband. It is also verified from the said bank account statement that Rs. 57,50,000/- has been paid to the vendor of new property (hereinafter referred to as "new asset") Shri Mohamed Sirazudeen Hussain through RTGS on 25.08.2014 towards purchase consideration for new investment in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the assessee is not having any relevant to the assessee's case, determined and levied the long term capital gain tax. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition. 5.1 In this case, the assessee received sale consideration on transfer of original asset of Rs. 42,68,880/- through DD. The Assessing Officer noticed that the entire sale consideration was gifted to her husband. Further, on verification of the said bank account statement Rs. 57,50,000/- has been paid to the vendor of new property through RTGS towards purchase consideration for new investment in the name of their son. Further, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee's husband Dr. M. Ayyasamy has gifted Rs. 72,30,000/- to his son Shri Ramprasath. Moreover, in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat section was in pari materia with section 54F. The judgement of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Gurnam Singh [2010] 327 ITR 278 (P&H) in which the same view was taken with reference to section 54F was also noticed by this Court." 5.3 Thus, the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Kamal Wahal (supra), Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT v. V. Natarajan [2006] 287 ITR 271, Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Courts in the case of CIT v. Gurnam Singh [2010] 327 ITR 278 and moreover, the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DIT v. Jennifer Bhide 349 ITR 80. Under these facts and circumstances, the long term capital ga....