TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1306
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounsel appearing for the assessee, on instructions, did not press Ground Nos. 1 and 2. Accordingly, these two grounds are dismissed as not pressed. 3. In Ground No.3, assessee has challenged the disallowance of Rs. 39,80,263/- claimed towards indexed cost of acquisition of land. 4. Briefly the facts are, the assessee acquired 18,443 sq.ft. of land in Coimbatore through registered sale deed dated 28.08.1981. On 21.08.2013, the assessee entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) cum Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Elysium Properties India Pvt. Ltd. for jointly developing a property named 'Elysium The Address'. As per the terms of the JDA cum MOU, the assessee was required to assign rights in the undivided land proportionate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Government approved valuer. He further observed that the cost of acquisition has been worked out adopting some unknown method by referring to a Website of Government of Tamil Nadu and readjusting 5% towards inflation. Thus, he rejected assessee's claim of deduction towards cost of acquisition. Though, the assessee contested the disallowance before the First Appellate Authority however, it was sustained. 5. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the fact that the assessee is entitled to get the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition in terms of Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act') cannot be questioned. He submitted, at the time of computation of long-term capital gain, the value as on 0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 21.08.2013 for developing the property in terms of which, the assessee was required to part 45% of share in the undivided land proportionate to the area to be developed and developer was to give the assessee 55% of the constructed area. It is also within the knowledge of the Department that in the year under consideration, the assessee had sold his rights to receive a constructed flat described elsewhere in the order along with its right in the proportionate undivided share of land. While the AO has disallowed assessee's claim alleging lack of evidence and unscientific manner in which the deduction has been worked out, the First Appellate has upheld the disallowance stating that once the assessee has transferred the land to the develope....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owing assessee's claim of deduction towards cost of acquisition after factual verification of the fresh evidence. Needless to mention, before deciding the issue, the AO must provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 10. In Ground No.4, the assessee has contested the disallowance of Rs. 1,44,55,200/- claimed towards indexed cost of acquisition of the rights of constructed area. 11. Briefly the facts are, as discussed earlier after entering into JDA cum MoU with the developer in the Financial Year 2013-14, the assessee acquired the rights in 55% of the constructed area in exchange of 45% of rights given in the undivided land. Out of the 55% constructed area given to the assessee, the assessee sold Flat No.B-5 admeas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of 'CIT vs. Vasavi Pratap Chand and another' [2017] 398 ITR 316 (Delhi). Further, he relied upon the following decisions to buttress his contention: 1. DCIT vs. Shri Jai Trikanand Rao, ITA No. 3873/Mum/2011order dated 21.06.2013. (Mum-Trib) 2. Shri Atul G. Puranik vs. ITO, ITA No. 3051/Mum/2010 order dated 13.05.2011 (Mum-Trib). 3. CIT vs. Greenfield Hotels and Estates Pvt. Ltd. [2016] 389 ITR 68 (Bom). 15. Learned Departmental Representative (DR) relied upon the observations of AO and learned First Appellate Authority. 16. We have considered rival submissions in the light of the decisions relied upon and perused the materials on record. There....