2023 (7) TMI 1585

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mmissioner (Appeals) erred in sustaining addition towards interest claimed, alleged addition towards short term capital gains and towards long term capital gains. 2.1 The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in sustaining the action of the learned AO in substituting the estimated sale consideration of Rs. 51,70,400/- with the guideline value of Rs. 92,69,700/-. 2.2 The learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider the plea of the appellant that the learned AO should not have negatived the claim of exemption u/s 54F of the Act more especially when there is jurisdictional High Court's judgements in the case of CIT vs V R Karpagam -50 taxmann.com 55 dated 18-08-2014 and Dr.PK vasanthi Ranagarajan vs CIT-Tax case No.&nbs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....07-2012 referred to above supports the stand of the appellant. If that property is excluded, then exemption u/ s 54F is allowable. 2.6 The learned Commissioner (Appeals) should not have sustained the action of the learned AO in treating the capital gains arising out of subsequent sale of three flats as short term as the appellant cannot sell the UDS separately and building portion separately. It is a composite sale and the learned AO cannot treat them as separate sale. 2.7 The learned Commissioner (Appeals) should not have sustained the disallowance of interest claimed as paid / payable to the appellant's mother, more especially when the appellant has produced the assessment order passed u/ s 143(3) of the Act in the hands of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mputation of capital gains. The Assessing Officer after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also taken note of computation of long term capital gains, rejected arguments of the assessee and determined total income from capital gains at Rs. 1,40,54,654/-, after rejecting deduction claimed u/s. 54F of the Act. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority, but could not succeed. The ld. CIT(A), for the reasons stated in their appellate order rejected arguments of the assessee and sustained additions made by the Assessing Officer towards computation of long term capital gains arising out of development of property. Aggrieved by the CIT (A) order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ilable on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The fact with regard to the impugned dispute are that the assessee entered into a joint development agreement dated 07.02.2011 for development of property at Chennai. The assessee had computed long term capital gains arising from the development of the property for the assessment year 2013-14 and declared nil capital gains after claiming exemption u/s. 54F of the Act. The assessee claimed that, although the year of taxability of capital gains from joint development agreement does not pertains to assessment year 2013-14, but she had declared long term capital gains on the basis of subsequent sale of flats received from the builders in terms of joint development agreement for ....