2016 (11) TMI 1709

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../- and deduction u/ 54F at Rs. 52,00,000/- in computing the capital gain on sale of agricultural land by holding that benefit of investment made before the date of furnishing the return u/ 139(4) is not allowable unless the amount is deposited in capital gain account scheme within the due date of filing of return u/ 139(1). 1.1. The ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in wrongly relying on the decision of Cochin Bench of ITAT in case of ITO vs. Smt. Rosamma Korah, 45 taxmann.com and incorrectly distinguishing the decision of ITAT Jaipur Bench in case of Nandlal Sharma vs. ITO relied by assessee in disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 54B & 54F. 1.2. The ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in holding that dedu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is not justified in disallowing the claim of the assessee. 3.2. On the contrary, the ld. D/R has strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. 3.3. In rejoinder, the ld. Counsel reiterated the submissions as made in the written synopsis. 3.4. We have heard rival contentions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The undisputed facts as recorded by the AO are that the assessee had sold two properties i.e. land situated at Ramsinghpura, Tehsil Sanganer, Khasra Nos. 165 & 166, admeasuring 0.82 Hectare on 28.12.2010 to M/s. Krishna Balram Residency Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur jointly with his brother Shri Sedhu Ram at the consideration of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- and land situated at Ra....