TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 184
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 11 (1 to 11) grounds of appeal and raised additional grounds off appeal from 12 to 17, the sum and substance of which are against the action of the CIT(A) in upholding the computation of long term capital gains u/s 50C of the Act at Rs. 41,04,732/- by the AO. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing officer noticed that the assessee claimed Long term capital gain of Rs. 12,60,561/-. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had showed receipt of Rs .6,68,50,000/- towards sale consideration of the commercial property located at 1-1-152 to 155, admeasuring 2474 Sq. Yards of Land at S.D. Road Secunderabad to M/s. Yasoda Health Services Pvt ltd on 14.11.2011. On verificatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... As submitted in the foregoing paras, the actual sale consideration is influenced by the said litigations. Under the above, said circumstances, the value as per "Stamp Valuation Authority" cannot be adopted in the assessee's case for the year under consideration. 3.1 The Assessing Officer did not accept the above submissions of the assessee. The Assessing Officer invoked provisions of Section 50C and adopted the SRO value as per the Stamp Valuation Authority for calculating me Long Term capital gains at Rs. 4l,04,732/- as against the assessee's claim at Rs. 12,60,561/-. 4. When the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), against the order of AO, the CIT(A) upheld the order of AO. 5. Still aggrieved, the assessee is in a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....et(s) is only land and building than such a right.3.We further find that the assessee has placed reliance on (i) Smt. D. Anitha vs. ITO reported in [2015] 55 taxmann.com 538 (Hyd. Trib); (ii) Tummala Vidyapal Reddy vs. ITO (ITA No. 48/Hyd/2018); (iii) ITO vs. V. Tara Chand Jain [2015] 63 Taxmann.com 86 (Jaipur Trib.); (iv) Smt. Devidraben I. Barot Vs. ITO, Ahmedabad [2016] 70 Taxmann.com 235 (Ahmedabad. Trib) and (v) Mrs. Rekha Agarwal vs. ITO, Jaipur [2017] 79 Taxmann.com 290 (Jaipur-Trib.), wherein it was held that such a transfer of the vendor's limited right in respect of land and building than the twin categories of assets, as the case may be, does not come within the purview of application of section.50C of the Act. We, therefore, del....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee and thereafter imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(b). He relied on the orders of the authorities below. He further submitted that the assessee did not comply with the notice dated 19/01/2015 which was duly served upon the assessee on 23/01/2015 before & before imposing the penalty, the an opportunity was given vide show cause notice dated 29/01/2015. 12. After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record as well as the orders of authorities below, it is observed that penalty has been imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(b) for not complying with the notices issued dated 19/01/2015 by the AO u/s 142(1) of the Act. We find from the order of the AO that assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 30/03/2015 and in the assessment ....