TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 906
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmissions made by the appellant during the appellate proceedings. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing officer in adopting the sale consideration of the property at Rs. 1,53,00,000/- and the share of the appellant at Rs. 29,07,000/-. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals) ought to have seen that the value fixed by the Sub Registrar includes the value of the land which has to be excluded and cost of the constructed area only has to be taken into consideration. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in reducing the indexed cost of acquisition to Rs. 42,633/-. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have accepted the claim made by the appellant. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the claim for deduction u/s 54F of the I.T. Act." 4. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual, who entered into a Development Agreement cum GPA with M/s. Bhavani Shankar Constructions for a total project cost of Rs. 1,80,99,000/-. On verification of the details with regard to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....12 - The appellant and T. Sathi Reddy entered into Development Agreement with M/s Bhavani Shanker Constructions, Saroornagar, Hyderabad. The owners i.e., the appellant is entitled for 40% share of the constructed area upto 3rd floor and 35% share of the constructed area in 4th & 5th floor. The developer completed the construction and handed over the appellant's share. 3. The Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice u/s 142(1) of the I.T Act calling for the information. The Assessing officer completed the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 determining the total income at Rs. 28,64,367/- which includes Long Term Capital Gain on entering into Development Agreement. 4. At the time of registration of the Development Agreement the total project cost is estimated by the SRO at Rs. 1,80,99,000/- including the cost of land. 5. As per the Assessing Officer, the land is valued at Rs. 4,500/- per sq. yd and the total cost for 622 sq. yards worked out to Rs. 27,99,000/-. Therefore, the cost of construction of the entire project is Rs. 1,53,00,000/- for the entire 22,500 sft. Which gives a rate of Rs. 680/- per sq. ft. Accordingly, the value of the constructed area falling to the sha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....c.54F of the I.T. Act. In this regard, the appellant relies on the following judgments. i) The decision of the A.P. High Court in the case of CIT Vs Syed All Adil reported in 352 ITR 418 accordingly to which all the flats allotted are to be considered as one house. ii) The decision of the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench-A in the case of Vittal Krishna Conjeevaram Vs ITO reported in 36 taxmann.com 542. iii) The decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT & Another Vs Smt. Rukmini Amma reported in 331 ITR 211. iv) The decision of the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench-B in the case of ACIT Vs Smt. Faziunnisa Begum, Hyderabad in ITA No.66/Hyd/2017 dated 9.1.2018.(copy submitted) Therefore, the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 54F of the I.T. Act. 9. The Assessing officer and the CIT (Appeals) held that no claim was made and, therefore, the assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s 54F. For this proposition, the authorities relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goeteze (India) Ltd. Vs CIT reported in 284 ITR 323 10. It is humbly submitted that the said decision is not applicable as the claim was made before the appellate authorities. A copy of the sai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lready considered the cost of land from the value and excluded the cost of land from the project value. Therefore Ground 4 of the assessee is incorrect and without factual basis. Further, as mentioned in the order of Id. CIT(A) at Para 4.3 (to quote) 'the argument put forth by the appellant to charge capital gains otherwise is not tenable as the character of the land got changed due to development activity...'. Therefore, the argument of the assessee is both belated and without basis. 4. The claim of the assessee in claiming benefit of section 54F is not sustainable due to the following prime reasons. Firstly, the assessee did not file any ITR or made any claim for benefit of section 54F therein and hence the same is not admissible as per the ratio of Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs CIT: 284 ITR 323. Secondly, the assessee in the instant case has claimed to sell his land and received the consideration for same in kind in the form of the constructed' area. Hence, it is merely a receipt in his hands being his income and is required to be treated as such. The provisions of section 54F are attracted (to quote from the section) '...the capital g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case of CIT Vs. Balbir Singh Maini reported in [2017] 86 taxmann.com 94 (SC) had also mentioned that in case the JDA is registered, the date of transfer would be the date of registration of the JDA and the capital gain would arise on the said date of registration. 10. In the present case, the registered JDA had not only provided the share of the assessee in the built-up area but also provided the estimate value of the property for Rs. 1,80,99,000/-. Therefore, in my opinion, the order passed by the Assessing Officer taking the value mentioned in the registered JDA is in accordance with law. The law is fairly settled that the contents of registered documents are required to be given precedence over the oral evidence unless the contents of the registered documents are rebutted by other contemporaneous evidence. In the present case, no evidence has been brought to my notice showing that the value mentioned in the registered JDA was incorrect. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the grounds raised by the assessee. Accordingly, ground nos. 2 to 5 of the assessee's appeal are dismissed. GROUND NO.6 11. With respect to ground no.6 of assessee's appeal, I found that the h....