2021 (1) TMI 787

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, 'A' Bench ('the Tribunal' for brevity) for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. The Revenue has filed the above appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law: "i. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right and justified in holding that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 54F when the capital asset transferred was not long term capital asset in view of Section 2(29A) read with Section 2(42A) of the Act? ii. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in treating the asset held by the assessee for less than four months as long term capital gain asset as ag....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on 49(1) of the Act since the assessee held the trademark for a period of less than four months. The assessment was accordingly completed under Section 143(3) of the Act by order dated 19.3.2015 disallowing the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 54F of the Act, considered the long term capital asset declared by the assessee to the tune of Rs. 16.49 crores as short term capital gains and rejected the claim of Rs. 3,50,28,256/- under Section 54F of the Act. 6. As against the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Chennai- 34 [for short, the CIT(A)]. The appeal was allowed by order dated 28.3.2018. Questioning the correctness of the same, the Revenue filed an appeal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... one other issue, which was considered by the Assessing Officer is with regard to the property owned by the assessee, which, she claimed to be a commercial property. The Assessing Officer held the same to be a residential property and accordingly rendered a finding. 10. The correctness of this finding was examined by the CIT(A), who found from the sale deed dated 24.3.1995 that the property owned by the assessee at Secundrabad was indeed a commercial property situated in a complex called 'Diamond Towers'. The relevant clauses in the said sale deed had been referred to by the CIT(A) in paragraph 7 of the order dated 28.3.2018. This issue was also considered by the Tribunal on the appeal filed by the Revenue and noting the factual ....