TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 58
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2) The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming determination of the capital gain in the case of the appellant HUF. 3) The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming rejection of the claim u/s 54F of the I.T Act. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have been that the residential house was constructed jointly by the individual and the HUF and, therefore, the appellant is entitled for exemption u/s 54F of the I.T. Act. 4) The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming disallowance of development expenditure of Rs. 6,50,OOO/- and the expenditure incurred in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n spent during the FY 2008-09 on the said plot by the assessee before entering to an agreement with the builder and deducted indexed cost of improvement of Rs. 7,05,842/- along with cost of acquisition. The assessee claimed deduction u/s 54F of Rs. 11,84,540/-. The assessee claimed that the reinvestment was made in residential house which is jointly owned by the assessee in HUF & individual capacities. The AO did not allow the claim of developmental expenses in the absence of reliable evidences and disallowed the deduction u/s 54F as the construction of house was already shown to be completed in the individual hands of the assessee. Further, on sale of flats the assessee admitted short term capital gains. In computation of STCG, the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ining the income at Rs. 27,95,960/-. He taxed both the short term capital gain on sale of flats and long term capital gain on entering into development agreement, without allowing deduction U/S 54F of the I.T. Act. The appellant filed an appeal before the CIT (A). The CIT (A) vide order dated 09.02.2016 dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. The appellant is now before the Hon'ble Income tax Appellate Tribunal contesting the determination of the capital gain; confirming the rejection of the claim U/S 54F and confirming the disallowance of development expenditure of Rs. 6,50,000/-. 3. After completion of the assessment for the assessment year 2010-11, the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2008-09 issued notice U/S ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... arising on entering into the Development Agreement is not taxable for the assessment year 2010-11 as the same is taxed for the assessment year 2008-09 and became final as the assessee filed application under Vivad se Vishwas Act. 6. The appellant requests the Hon'ble ITAT to kindly pass appropriate orders in the matter." 6. The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the revenue authorities. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record as well as gone through the orders of revenue authorities. Before denying the assessee's claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act, the AO observed that the assessee possess a residential house at D. No. 4-2-560/1, Radhakrishna Nagar, Haveli Panchay....