TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 203
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T(A), Bangalore-3 is opposed to law, facts circumstances of the case. 2 The Id. CIT(A) has erred in holding that a sum of Rs. 1,37,00,000/- being a part of the sale consideration is agreeable to tax in the hands of the Appellant without appreciating the fact that the Appellant was entitled to 1/6th share of the sale proceeds of Rs. 66,66,666/- attributable to her coparcenery share out of the total sale consideration of Rs. 4,00,00,000/-. Rs. 38,70,26O/ 3 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Appellant was not entitled for deduction admissible u/s. 54F(1 )(a) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the provision of section 4F(1)(b) needs to be read together and not in isolation. Same as above 4 The Ld. CIT(A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- by including TDS of Rs. 2,00,000/- as against Rs. 1,37,00,000/- being a part of the consideration as specified in the sale deed. Same as above 5 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the conditions for availing the deduction u/s. 54 and 54F are different and the decision rendered u/s. 54 cannot be made applicable to claim ie deduction u/s. 54F. Same as above 6 The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and delete an of the grounds at the time of hearing. 45,93,160/- Brief facts of case are as under: 2. On perusal of records, we note that, issue alleged by assessee is in both appeals relate to share in sale consideration at attributable to the respective assessee's in property sold situated at survey No. 81/2 measuring....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that, assessee was entitled to 1/4th share being Rs. 1,37,00,000/- of total sale consideration as against Rs. 66,66,666/- declared by assessee. 9. Ld.CIT(A) held as under: "4.2 During appellate proceedings the appellant has made detailed submissions. The appellant has argued that one of the appellant's sisters was having two sons and they too had equal right over the land sold and as such there were 6 co-owners of the property. However a perusal of the Judgment and Decree dt 29.05.2003 in civil suit O.S. No 369/2001, and the sale deed dated 22.07.2014 shows that the grandsons were never held to be owners of any part of' this property. The ownership was of' four persons only being the appellant, her mother and two sisters. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gal hairs of late Narasimha Alias K.Muniyappa was entitled to 1/6th share of land, admeasuring 1 acre 20.04 guntas. He submitted that, according to the order by Hon'ble City Civil Court, sale consideration has to be divided amongst, assessee her mother 2 sisters and wife of deceased brother being Smt. Bhagya. 13. Ld. A.R. submitted that, this aspect has not been considered by authorities below, because of which, addition has been made in the hands of assessee by considering 1/4th share of sale consideration. He placed reliance on orders passed by the Hon'ble City Civil Court placed at page 37-59 of paper book. 14. Ld.Sr.DR placed reliance on observations by Ld.CIT(A) in para 4.2 of impugned order. 15. We have perused submissions advanced....