TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1416
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tial premises and was due for lawful, adequate and valid consideration and the provisions of s. 56(2)(x)was not applicable and further erred in valuing the receipt/income of the PAAA at Rs. 1,10,01,000 ignoring the fact that the stamp duty value of the said PAAA was nominal and insignificant. S. No Description Amount 1 Value of immovable property Rs. 1,10,01,000/- 2. Car Parking Rs 7,31,501/- 3. Hardship Compensation Rs. 15,87,555/- 4. Brokerage Rs. 1,16,978/- 5. Shifting Charges Rs 20,000/- 6. Transit rent for 33 months Rs. 42,59,174/- 7. Stamp duty and registration fee Rs .5,80,500/- TOTAL Rs. 1,82,96,708/- GROUND NO. 2: Capital Gains and Exemption u/s. 54F Without prejudice to Ground No. 1, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in NOT computing the Income on surrender of tenancy rights as the Income under the head 'capital gains' and further erred in law in denying the exemption u/s. 54F on reinvestment of the net consideration in acquiring the residential premises and further erred in holding that there was "no sale or transfer of tenancy rights o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n law and on facts in confirming the action of the Ld.AO in making an addition of Rs. 5,80,500 representing the contractual liability of the stamp duty and registration fees ignoring the fact that under the said PAAA the said payments were the responsibility and the liability of the Developer alone which was paid by him and the appellant had not paid any amount nor he had received the said amount. GROUND NO. 6: Violation of Natural Justice The Ld.CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in ignoring the overwhelming submissions made before him in writing and also ignoring the direct decisions on the subject forming part of the judicial proceedings and holding that no sale or transfer of tenancy rights occurred inspite of the PAAA, a copy whereof was furnished to him. The appellant craves for leave to add, amend, alter or delete any of the grounds of appeal. Each of the grounds here before are independent of each other." 2. Brief facts of the case are that case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under compulsory category based on information received from Sub-Registrar; Mumbai that assessee had purchased an immovable property, and has shown less con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... his wife and landlord. In pursuance of term of contract the assessee vacated tenanted premises. The assessee was allotted permanent alternate accommodation as flat No. 401, admeasuring 1119.67 square feet. The benefit/consideration/allotment of flat was made in-lieu of tenancy right which is a 'capital receipt' and should be tax at capital gain and its investment is exempted under section 54F. Further the hardship compensation of Rs. 15,87,555/- is capital receipt as has been held in various judicial pronouncement. The tenancy was in the joint name and taxing entire amount in the hand of assessee is incorrect. The assessee was given transit rent per month. The assessee was also given shifting charges of Rs. 20,000/-, transit rent of Rs. 42,59,174/-. Further Bombay High Court in its decision held that no stamp duty value is leviable on permanent alternate accommodation agreement. 4. The ld. CIT (A) after considering the submission of assessee upheld the action of assessing officer. The Ld. CIT (A) was of the view that the assessee has received property without consideration or inadequate consideration in excess of Rs. 50,000/-. Assessee received flat val....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... lower authorities disregard and ignore the details furnished during the assessment as well as in first appeal. The Ld.AR of the assessee while summing up the submission would submit that the assessee did not owned any residential premises on the date of transfer of tenancy right, tenancy right being a capital assets and case of assessee is also covered under section 54F and qualified for exemption. No reason is given by assessing officer for denying exemption. To support his various submissions, the Ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following decisions; ⮚ Vasant Nagorao Barabde Vs DCIT (2015) 174 taxmann.com 101 (Mum.), ⮚ Jatinder Kumar Madan Vs ITO (2019) 21 taxmann.com 316(Mum), ⮚ ACIT Vs Dr. Jayesh K. Shah, 175 ITD 751 (Mum.), ⮚ Meher F. Surti, ITA No. 1186/Mum/2013 and ⮚ ITO Vs Abbas Ali Shiraz, (2006) 5 ITD 422(Bang.). 6. So far as addition on account of car parking of Rs. 7,31,501/- representing the stamp duty value of car parking is concerned, it was agreed for allotment as per clause 10 of agreement. No such payment was received by the assessee. The possession of said car park....