Consideration of sale agreement date for computation of LTCG.

Last updated: 13 February 2021

Save Share

Quick Summary

This Income Tax Appellate Tribunal case concerns the calculation of Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) tax, specifically whether the date of the sale agreement or another date should be used for computation. The assessee is appealing an order that upheld the assessment of significant capital gains under Section 50C of the Act. The core issue revolves around the correct date to consider for determining the capital gains tax liability.

Court :
ITAT Bangalore

Brief :
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.03.2019 of the CIT(Appeals), Bangalore-9, Bangalore in relation to assessment year 2007-08.

Citation :
Appeal Number : ITA No.999/Bang/2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“A” BENCH : BANGALORE

BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.999/Bang/2019
Assessment year: 2007-08

Mr. Prakash Chand Bethala,
815, 80 feet Ring Road,
8th Block, Koramangala,
Bangalore – 560 095.
PAN: AABHK 7700G
APPELLANT

Vs.

The Deputy Commissioner
of Income Tax,
Circle 7[1],
Bengaluru.
RESPONDENT

Appellant by : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Respondent by : Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru.

Date of hearing : 11.01.2021
Date of Pronouncement : 28.01.2021

O R D E R

Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.03.2019 of the CIT(Appeals), Bangalore-9, Bangalore in relation to assessment year 2007-08.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

“1. The orders of the authorities below in so far as they are against the appellant are opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The order of re-assessment is bad in law and void-ab-initio for want of requisite jurisdiction especially, the mandatory requirements to assume jurisdiction u/s 148 of the Act did not exist and have not been complied with and consequently, the order of re-assessment requires to be cancelled.

3. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the assessment of the long term Capital Gains of Rs. 2,68,25,802/- onthe alleged transfer of property during the year invoking the provisions of sec. 50C of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case.

To know more in details find the attachment file