TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 934
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bunal"] dated 24 February 2020 and has proposed the following questions of law for our consideration: - (1) Whether Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in the eyes of law, passing the impugned order, affirming the order of CIT (A) holding that multiplicative factor of "1" is applicable to property sold by the appellant assessee? (2) Whether Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in the eyes of law, passing the impugned order, affirming the order of CIT (A) in the facts and circumstances of the present case, ignoring the fact that rejecting the suggestion of the Assessing Officer pleading for disallowance of appropriate amount u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (3) Whether Hon'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ["CIT(A)"] on the applicability of Section 50C. 4. We note that while dealing with both the question of Section 50C as well as the multiplicative factor which would apply, the CIT(A) had come to the following conclusions:- 4.01 "I went through the submissions of the appellant as well as of the AO alongwith various documents and remand reports furnished by the AO. There were essentially twin disputes. The FIRST ONE was that as per the appellant Sec. 50С was not applicable. Therefore, deemed sale value could not be applied. After considering the contentions of the appellant, as elaborated above under para 3 supra, I am not inclined to agree with it. Sec. 50C (1) as amended w.e.f. 01.10.2009 "by the Finance (No. 2) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant while filing the print outs from the MCD's authenticated website also pointed out that as per the sald website, there were two different areas, (1) "Shamaypur village" in "G" category and (2) "Samaypur village (urban)" In "H" category. It was claimed by the appellant that if it was a case of printing error then why Shamaypur village and Samaypur village would be shown separately at two places on the same website. The appellant in this regard also filed a letter dtd. to MCD on 26.05 2015 for clarifying this issue as well as some more Issues arising out of letter dtd. 21.05.2015 Issued by NDMC, but It did not meet with success. 4.04 The above conflict was carefully studied by me. Basically the quarrel between the AO a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt as agricultural, there could be no dispute about the character of the land, which in the Instant case was agricultural. As a corollary of the above the multiplicative factor in the case at hand would be the one which was prescribed by the Delhi government for permissible/ sanctioned use of lands either as agricultural or residential or industrial or commercial. So long as the legislation was not in place to cover situations of abuse of lands as above, the prevalent law was to be applied without any extrapolation and permutations and combinations. Any departure therefrom would subtracting words from the statute. tantamount to adding or subtracting words from the statute. In such a scenario I am of the considered view tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as not charged, therefore, STCG on sale of building portion was not legal. In result the prayer of AO for enhancement stands rejected." 5. When the matter reached the Tribunal, these issues were cursorily disposed of with it being observed as follows: - "5.1 After hearing both the parties and perusing the orders passed by the revenue authorities, especially the impugned order dated 09.6.2015 of the Ld. CIT(A), as reproduced above, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) has decided the issues and deleted the additions, after elaborately discussing the detailed evidences. Therefore, we are fully agree with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) passed in his impugned order and we are of the view that no interference is called for i....