TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 384
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder consideration on 17.10.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 1,49,03,580/-. The appellant earned long term capital gain of Rs. 2,36,15,553/- out of the transfer of non-agricultural land lying and situated at Survey No. 360, Sama, Vadodara, the computation whereof is as follows: Particulars Amount (Rs.) Sale Consideration 6,85,00,000 Less: Indexed Cost of Acquisition 1,58,84,447 Less: Cost of Improvement 2,90,00,000 Long Term Capital Gain 2,36,15,553 5. The history of the said transfer of land is as follows: i. The appellant purchased a plot of land measuring about 7113 sq.mtr. by and under a deed of conveyance dated 23.03.2008 from one Shri Shantilal Ambalal Patel for a consideration of Rs. 1,72,20,573/-. ii. Thereafter, on 13.02.2009, the appellant entered into an agreement to transfer the right title interest of the part of the said land admeasuring about 1858 sq.mtr. to Smt. Ashaben Hemangbhai Parikh and Sandeep Chandrakant Modi (HUF) for a total consideration of Rs. 90 Lakhs out of which Rs. 45 Lakhs were duly paid by those two co-owners to the appellant at the time of execution of the said deed of agreement for sale. iii. On 20.11.2015, the earlier agre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O and confirmed by the First Appellate Authority. Hence, the instant appeal before us. 8. The contention of the assessee is this that the disallowance of deduction of Indexed cost of improvement amounting to Rs. 3,35,00,000/- and addition of the same to the returned income of the appellant despite the fact that the same was incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of the asset is not sustainable in the eye of law. 9. Under these facts and circumstances of the matter, Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee relied upon the following series of judgments on the identical issue: i. Smt. Sapnaben Dipakbhai Patel vs. ITO, reported in [2016] 73 taxmann.com 288 (Ahmedabad-Trib.) ii. ACIT vs. Pushkar Dutt Sharma, reported in [2015] 56 taxmann.com 292 (Delhi-Trib.) iii. Kaushalya Devi vs. CIT, reported in [2018] 92 taxmann.com 335 (Delhi) iv. Nanubhai Keshavlal Chokshi HUF vs. ITO, reported in [2016] 74 taxmann.com 113 (Ahmedabad-Trib.) v. CIT vs. Smt. Shakuntala Kantilal, reported in [1991] 58 TAXMAN 106 (BOM) 10. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the authorities below. 11. We find that the case made out by the assessee is thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave gone through the record carefully. There is not much dispute between the parties on the facts. The dispute is with regard to inference drawn from the evidence available on the record. Before embarking upon an inquiry on the nature of evidence produced by the assessees, and the reasons assigned by the AO for rejecting the explanation of the assessees, I would like to take note of section 48 of the Income Tax Act. This section contemplates mode of computation of capital gains. It provide that income chargeable under the head "Capital Gains" shall be computed by deducting from the full value of the consideration received or accruing, as a result of the transfer of the capital asset the following amounts, viz. (i) the expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer, and (ii) cost of acquisition of the asset and the cost of any improvement thereto, provided ............ The question before me is whether the payment made by both the assessees to their bothers is to be considered as expenditure incurred for improvement of asset or the title. According to both the assessees, their brothers were residing in the house owned by them and while selling the house....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee except charging of interest under section 234B which is consequential in nature. 6. In ITA No.86/Ahd/2012, the assessee has raised two more grounds of appeal. In this next ground of appeal, the assessee pleaded that the assessee had claimed additional expenditure for improvement of this property. This claim has been allowed to the assessee, but the ld.CIT(A) has allowed it at Rs. 2,88,370/-, whereas, the correct figure is of Rs. 6,75,000/-. 7. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has purchased property at 11, Shaligram Bungalow-1, Thaltej, Ahmedabad for a sum of Rs. 46,25,000/-. He further incurred an expenditure of Rs. 6.75 lakhs, and accordingly claimed deduction under section 54 of the Income Tax Act. The ld.AO has disallowed the claim of the assessee with regard to the expenditure of Rs. 6.75 lakhs. A perusal of the paragraph 3.00 and 3.2 of the CIT(A)'s order, it would reveal that the ld.CIT(A) has allowed the claim but wrongly mentioned the amount of Rs. 2,88,370/-. To my mind, it is an apparent error committed at the end of the ld.CIT(A). Otherwise, in the assessment order as well as in all other details, the expenditure incurred by the assessee at Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estion is situated at F.P.No.80, T.P.S. No.20, 35/North Side, Sardar Patel Nagar Society, Ahmedabad. It comprised an area of 1821.00 sq.meters. There is a distribution deed dated 18.8.2006 between the assessee and Shri Ashokbhai Keshavdas Chowkshi. Thus, the assessee has an area of 910.50 sq.meters. The ld. Registered valuer has estimated the total value at Rs. 36.42 lakhs. It represents to the area of 1821.00 sq.meters. Similarly, there was a built-up area of 316.32 sq.meters. He applied the rate of 1000/- and valued at Rs. 3,16,320/-. The total value has been shown at Rs. 39,58,320/-. The assessee has half share and the value has been shown at Rs. 19,79,160/- . Against this valuation report, all other correspondences, i.e. confirmation etc. from valuer is totally irrelevant at the end of the AO, because the valuer was never cross-examined as to how he can change his report unilaterally. The ld.Revenue authority has made reference to all irrelevant details for scaling down the valuation of the property as on 1.4.1981. I direct the AO to take value of the property at Rs. 19,79,160/-, and thereafter, compute the long term capital gain in the hands of the assessee. 11. In the resul....