TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 78
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1.The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (A) ought to have accepted the explanation of the appellant and directed the assessing authority to accept the long term capital gains as computed by the appellant as correct and complete. 2. The learned Commissioner (A) ought to have refrained from upholding the capital gains as computed by the learned assessing authority. 3. The learned Commissioner (A) ought to have appreciated that the apportionment of the land sold between the appellant and his son was correct and the value attributed was also correct and accordingly no revision was required in the estimation for the purpose of computation of long term capital gains in the hands of the appellant. 4. The learned Commissioner (A) ought to ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pital gains in the hands of the appellant. 4. The learned Commissioner (A) ought to have appreciated that the appellant was entitled to the benefit u/s.54F of the Act as claimed by him in full. 5. The learned Commissioner (A) ought to have appreciated that the mere fact that the Nursing Home was constructed in addition to the residential house, the land purchased cannot loose the character of appurtenant land to the house to avail the benefit under section 54F of the Act. 6. Without prejudice, the capital gains as computed by the assessing authority is excessive, arbitrary and unreasonable and liable to be deleted in toto. 7. The Ld.Commissioner(A) erred in confirming the interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 8.For these an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r contended that sale consideration was as per sale deed for buildings and land and thus valuation report has been relied only to know value of building. Ld.AO rejected assessee's contention and held that as assessee was relying on valuation report for building, land also should be considered as per valuation report, since they were sold together. 3.1 Ld.AO further observed that property was given on lease to firm namely M/s Sree Maruti Nursing Home, in which assessee and his son are partners. It was observed that firm invested funds in construction of building, which was used as nursing home, and, as per valuation report building constructed by this firm was valued at Rs. 33,34,579/-. Subsequent to sale, assessee invested fund realized f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The contention of Ld.AR is that, exemption under section 54F of the Act is to be granted on total land and portion of building used for residential purposes as against, exemption under section 54F restricted by Ld.AO on proportionate area of land used for residential purposes. Ld. Counsel submitted that this is the only issue that has been raised by assessee in both appeals. It has been argued that sale consideration was invested in residential property at Tumkur, which was verified by Ld.AO and as long as residential house was constructed for which site is absolutely necessary, it could not be said that investment in cost of site in which residential building stands is not eligible for exemption claimed. 7. On the contrary, Ld.Senior ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... granting of exemption under section 54F in respect of entire land on which construction in respect of residential house as well as commercial building being nursing home have been done. However, it is observed that Ld.AO while computing capital gain, allowed Rs. 33,41,839/- as cost of land appurtenant to residential house for which there is no basis. Ld.CIT(A) mentions land on which residential house constructed amounts to Rs. 586.96 sq.mts, out of total land 2543.25sq.mts. Both Ld.AO and Ld.CIT(A) failed to compute vacant land that may be annexed to residential house. We therefore, direct Ld.AO to consider all these aspects for purpose of computing exemption u/s 54F and capital gains payable by assessee. Needless to say that assessee is ....