TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 784
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ainst returned income of Rs. 1,84,310/- declared by the Appellant without appreciating the facts and circumstance of the case. This action of the NFSC is unjustified and the same may be set aside. Disallowance of an additional claim made by NFAC is unjustified: 2. The NFAC has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer (AO) in denying the benefit of an exemption u/s 54F of the Act merely relying on the decision of M/s. Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT [284 ITR 323] (SC) and thereby holding the Appellant is not entitled for any claim which is not made in the original return of income, though, the same was subsequently made by filing a revised computation in the assessment proceedings without appreciating that the Appellant has duly satisfied all the conditions precedent to claim the benefit u/s 54F. Thus, the disallowance of the claim made u/s 54F of the Act is unjustified and the same may be deleted. 3. The NFAC failed to appreciate that, the appellate authority has got powers to entertain the additional claims which are not made in the original return of income and the said contention is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay high Court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. The assessee filed return of income on 17^th July 2014, at a total income of Rs. 1,84,310/-. This return was picked up for scrutiny by issue of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act on 28^th August 2015. 04. During the year, the assessee has claimed exemption under Section 54F of the Act on sale of property and consequent investment in residential property. 05. The fact shows that the assessee has sold an industrial gala on which assessee has claimed depreciation in earlier years, the capital gain arising on sale of depreciable asset was utilized by the assessee in purchase of a house property and claimed exemption under Section 54/54F of the Act, same was denied. 06. The assessee has sold one-office premises at Industrial Unit no.6, ground floor, A wing, Oshiwara Industrial Centre, Plot No. D/11, Survey No.161, Goregaon West, Mumbai on 13thMay 2013 for Rs 57 lakhs to Mrs Ratna Pathak Shah. 07. This property was purchases on 9thMarch 2010, From Mr. Dilip Chimanlal Solanki for Rs 20,00,000/-. Depreciation on the same was claimed upto 31stMarch 2012. 08. Assessee states that she has made investment in a new Residential House property 34,42215/- at Flat no T 21-201,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act. The learned CIT (A) relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakthi Metal Depot Vs. CIT. 232 CTR 279 (ker). Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 015. On appeal before us, the brief facts of the case are reiterated and submitted that though assessee has sold her office on which depreciation is claimed, the capital gain arising there from is a short term capital gain in view of provisions of Section 50, however, the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 54F of the Act or Section 54 of the Act as the original property sold was held for more than 36 months and is a long term capital asset. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ace Builders Pvt. Ltd. 281 ITR 210 Bombay, decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Dempo Company Ltd. 387 ITR 354. On the issue of the decision relied upon by the learned CIT (A) in case of Sakthi Metal Depot (supra) of Hon'ble Kerala High Court 333 ITR 492, he submits that in that judgment the deduction for section 54/54F of the Act was not an issue. He submitted that the facts of the case are whether on sale of building on w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s incorrect for the reason that the assessee has claimed depreciation on this property and provision of section 41 (2) of the Act applies. Therefore, the profit or loss on this property is required to be computed under the provisions of Sections 41 (2) and 50 of the Act. 018. According to section 41 (2) of the Act where the building which is owned by the assessee in respect of which depreciation is claimed is sold, the excess of sale price over the written down value to the difference between actual cost and written down value shall be chargeable to income tax as income of the business of the previous year in which sale consideration is due. Therefore, to the extent of depreciation already allowed to the assessee shall be chargeable to tax as business income. 019. According to Section 50, excess realized by the assessee against Written-down value of the block of asset shall be deemed to be the capital gain arising from the short term capital asset. Thus, the benefit of indexation is not allowable to the assessee. Further, the assessee is allowed deduction only to the extent of Written-down value of the asset transferred. 020. In this case the learned Assessing Officer has ....