TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 601
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessment order dated 17.03.2021 passed by the National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi, under section 143(3) read with sections 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act for Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in para 8.8 of his order in considering the advancement of loans of Rs. 21,00,00,000/- as a cost of the property? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in holding the date of forfeiture of loan instead of date of advancement of loan? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant craves leave to add, delete, alter, modify, rectify, substitute or otherwise any or all of the grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing of the appeal." 3. Briefly stated, the assessee is a company engaged in the business of construction and real estate development. It filed its return of income on 11.09.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 86,610/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny in respect of investment in immovable property. During the year, a sale deed concerning the immovable property known as "Gita Gruh", situated at 4, Popatwadi/R.S. Sapre Marg, Mumbai, was registered on 15.04.2017. The document recorded a consideration of Rs. 21,00,00,000/-, whereas the stamp valuation authority adopted the value at Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CIT(A) erred in treating the earlier advances as the cost of acquisition and in holding that the transaction had crystallised before section 56(2)(x) came into force. 6. The Ld. Authorised Representative supported the impugned order. He submitted that the entire purchase consideration had been paid before 02.12.2015; the sale deed was executed and possession was delivered on 13.10.2016; and the delay in registration occurred on account of adjudication before the stamp duty authority. Reliance was placed on DCIT v. Romell Housing LLP (supra), Rajib Rathindra Saha v. ITO in ITA No.7352/Mum/2019 dated 21.02.2022 and other decisions cited in the written submission. It was also submitted, without prejudice, that the property was acquired as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....initiation of the statutory process for registration stood completed before 01.04.2017. The subsequent registration on 15.04.2017 was the culmination of the process already commenced before that date. 9. We also notice that the valuation adopted by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 38,68,86,000/- did not attain finality. The adjudication order was set aside by the Hon'ble High Court on 09.10.2018 with a direction to decide the matter afresh. Further, the report of the Government Registered Valuer valued the property as on 13.10.2016 at Rs. 13,47,96,000/-, which was below the consideration of Rs. 21,00,00,000/- paid by the assessee. These material facts were available on record, but the Assessing Officer made the addition only with reference t....