TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 213
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessment year 2012- 2013, in respect of the shares of 35.35% of immovable property at Lavelle Road, Bangalore. For the above said assessment year, viz., 2012-2013, the assessee had also paid taxes thereon. 3. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 for reopening the assessment year 2009-2010, since the JDA was executed on 28.04.2008 (i.e. in A.Y. 2009-2010). During the course of reassessment proceedings, the A.O. observed that LTCG for JDA should be taxed in assessment year 2009-2010. In response to the proposal by the A.O., the assessee submitted that since the possession of the property from JDA (5384.51 sq.ft. of built up area) was received during the assessment year 2012-2013, the resultant capital gain was admitted in assessmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd proportionate undivided share, right, title and interest in the immovable property and developer's right to sell and super built-up area with all benefits and advantages and parties entitlement to deal with built up area with respect to third parties. (v) Developer's payment of taxes and Levis from the date of Joint Development Agreement. (vi) Developer's right to enter into agreements of sale and execute sale deeds in respect of prospective buyers. (vii) Developer's hold on original title deeds. (viii) Entitlement of developer to obtain loan facilities by depositing the original title deeds and on security of development rights. (ix) Advertising and marketing rights to developer. 5. The Assessing Officer further stated that a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (Mum.)] and rejected the claim of the assessee that he is entitled to benefit u/s 54 of the I.T.Act for the entire super built-up area received from the builder as per JDA. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) has committed great error in not following the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court and placing reliance on the order of the ITAT Special Bench for denying the claim of deduction u/s 54 of the I.T.Act. The learned AR submitted that if the assessee is allowed deduction u/s 54 of the I.T.Act for the entire flats received under JDA, then all other issues raised in the appeal would become academic. 8. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee in the case of V.R.Karpagam (supra) entered into an agreement with M for development of a piece of land owned by it. As per agreement, assessee was to receive 43.75% of built-up area after development, which was translated into five flats. The Assessee claimed exemption u/s 54F on the value of five flats. The AO granted benefit of capital gains in respect of one flat and the CIT(A) affirmed findings of AO holding that claim of assessee u/s 54F of the I.T.Act for all five flats could not be admitted. However, the CIT(A) took the view that the assessee would be entitled to benefit of section 54F of the I.T.Act in respect of one single flat with largest area. In appeal, tribunal held that assessee was eligible for exemption u/s 54F ....