2024 (3) TMI 1197

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2019-20. 2. The assessee is a non-resident Indian residing in Singapore. The assessee had filed her ITR declaring total income of Rs. 56,83,560/- and the case of the assessee was selected under CASS. The AO had called for relevant information by issuing certified notices, but, there were no response and, accordingly, on best judgement the AO examined the data available on ITBA system/Form 26AS and SFT submissions and examining the capital gain arising out of sale of two properties additions were made in the draft assessment order. The assessee had moved DRP filing objections and the DRP issued certain directions on the basis of which the final assessment order was passed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal raising the following grounds:-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Rs. 13,283/- instead of circle rates as directed by the Hon'ble DRP being completely unjustified and bad in law. 7. That the Ld. AO has erred in law and facts of the case in making addition of Rs. 2,05,26,196 with respect to income from Long Term Capital Gain earned by the assessee during the year over and above the amount declared and offered for tax in the Income Tax Return, which is highly arbitrary, unjustified, uncalled for and bad in law. 8. That the Ld. AO/DRP has erred in not considering the documents filed by the assessee during the course of proceedings and making the addition in arbitrary manner, which is highly unjustified, uncalled for and bad in law. 9. The Ld. AO had erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e submitted that the valuation report of the registered valuer should have been relied and the ld. AO has erred in taking purchase cost treating the property to be acquired after 01.04.2001. 4.2 As regards the front basement, the assessee has claimed cost of acquisition of asset at Rs. 90,55,508/-. Thus, after taking the brokerage of Rs. 17,22,800/- and indexed cost of the rear basement as per the valuation report at Rs. 1,83,84,394/- and the front basement after indexation at Rs. 90,55,508/-, a long-term capital gain on sale of basement of Rs. 2,92,37,297/- is made out. 4.3 It comes up that the ld.AO has disallowed the brokerage expenses on the basis that the invoice is shown to be raised for ground floor of D4/5, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ns and the findings of the ld. AO in the final assessment order require to be reversed with the direction that the indexed cost of rear basement should be taken, on the basis of the valuation report as provided by the assessee, as per law. 6. Furthermore, the assessee has sold the second floor of D4/5, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, in which she had 50% of the share by way of sale deed dated 07.12.2018 for a sale consideration coming to her share at Rs. 6,87,50,000/-. The assessee has claimed that there was a brokerage of Rs. 20,28,125/- and a copy of invoice is made available at page 143 of the paper book. It is submitted that brokerage is not allowed in full, but, only to the extent of Rs. 10,14,062/- being 50%, according to the share in the c....