TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (5) TMI 80
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l gains U/s 48 of the IT Act. 2. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee was allotted a Flat No. T-1/147 in Sector-6, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur having the measurement of 938.37 SFT by Rajasthan Rajya Sehakari Awasan Sangh Ltd., Jaipur on 12/01/1995 at a total cost of Rs. 4,85,941/-. 3. It was submitted that the assessee took loan of Rs. 2,80,000/- on 01/07/1995 and paid the balance amount from her own sources. The assessee incurred interest expense of Rs. 3,93,898/- during the loan tenure since 01/07/1995 to 31/03/2009 and this interest was capitalized. No deduction U/s 24 (b) was claimed in the ITRs filed for the various years. The assessee is submitting the copies of ITRs filed during this period with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- are not related to the cost of construction of asset". 7. It was further submitted that both of the grounds of appeal relate to core issue i.e. whether the Interest and other expenses can form part of the cost of the capital asset for the purpose of computation of capital gains. 8. In this regard, it was submitted that the assessee has not claimed the deduction of interest u/s 24(b) and claimed the same as cost of capital asset u/s 48 only. Therefore, appellant is not claiming 'Double Deduction' of the same amount which has been criticized strongly by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Escorts Ltd & Another vs Union of India (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC). 9. It was further submitted that it is almost a settled law, being ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (supra) has considered the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Mithilesh Kumari (1973) 92 ITR 9 and also the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs. Shri Hariram Hotels (Purchase) Ltd. (2010) 188 taxman 170 (Kar) and has held as under:- " 9. We have perused the case records, analysed the facts and circumstances of the case and considered the judicial pronouncements, which was placed before us. In the case of CIT Vs. Mithilesh Kumari (supra), the Hon'ble High Court has held as under:- "(13) We are in respectful agreement with the observations of the Calcutta and the Bombay High Court in the decisions referred to above. In the present case, we find that the assessed in order to pu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ost of the land." In the case of CIT Vs. Sri Hariram Hotels (Purchase) Ltd. (2010) 188 Taxman 170 (Kar), the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has held as under:- "7. We are unable to agree with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revenue for the simple reason on facts that even the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has held that interest had accrued as on 31/3/2003 and therefore, the Tribunal is justified in granting the relief to the assessee since the property has been purchased out of the loan borrowed from the Directors and any interest paid thereon is to be included while calculating the cost of acquisition of the asset. Therefore, question No. 1 has to be answered against the revenue." I....