TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 324
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umstances of the appellant's case, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act is erroneous and bad in law. 2. In law and in facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in upholding the impugned addition on account of section 56(2)(vii) (b) amounting Rs. 90,00,000/-, received towards relinquishment in title over land offered as Capital Gain by the Appellant. 2.1 Without prejudice to above, the appellant submits that the Ld CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition of Rs. 90,00,000/- without allowing actual cost incurred by appellant for purchase of land in question amounting to Rs. 8,16,458/-. 3. In law and in facts and circumstances of the appellant'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther legal permissions of registrar of society. During the year 2015-16 assessee along with other co-owners came to know that Lalkar Co-op Housing Society is in process of the sale of such plot of land. The assessee already made payment towards such land. Since the assessee 1992-93 had a right over said property faces objections on such sale and hence received Rs. 90,00,000/- to relinquish title over such land so that they can sell the land to prospective buyer. The Assessing Officer observed that bonafide submitted by the assessee was not valid registered document and therefore the said property cannot be considered as mandatory asset of assessee as per definition u/s. 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee was asked to submit his....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5-16, the assessee along with co-owners received 90,00,000/- to relinquish the title for the said land as the Lalkar Co-op Housing Society after registered sale deed in favour of the buyer in assessment year 2016-17 transferred fund to respective owner on plot of land and thereby accepted the fact that the right over such property was belonging to assessee and other co-owners. Therefore, the assessee though not having registered sale deed but have symbolic possession over the property and therefore this is a long term gain and the assessee has rightly treated it as long term capital gain only. The Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) has changed the head which is not justifiable. The ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessing Officer has rightly held that received an amount of Rs. 90,00,000/- as the assessee is not a property developer or there is no transfer of property to the assessee then such consideration can be treated as income from other sources only and not as long term capital gain. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that as regards consideration received by the assessee amounting to Rs. 90,00,000/- for relinquishing the rights, the assessee has not submitted any details in the form of the settlement agreement or the deed of relinquishing of right in the property either before the Assessing Officer or before the CIT(A) and has also not submitted. The submissio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... mentioned that if the assessee will submit the proof/documents in relation to refund of Rs. 4,97,543/- which was received after surrendering the life insurance policy from ICICI Prudential, then same will not be as exempt income because the said amount received should be taxed under the head income from other sources as per provisions of section 80CCC(2)(a) of the Act. But since the assessee has not given any details, the Assessing Officer has rightly made addition. 9. The ld. D.R. relied on assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 10. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the amount of Rs. 4,97,543/- was received by the assessee as refund for surre....