Tally
coaching
CA Classes

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Erred in not allowing deduction u/s. 54F of the Income Tax Act

LinkedIn


Court :
ITAT Hyderabad

Brief :
These assessee’s and Revenue’s cross appeals for Asst. Year 2014-15 arisefrom the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Hyderabad’s order dt.26.08.2019 passed in case No.0220/CIT(A)-10/2016-17, in proceedings under Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).

Citation :
ITA 1597/Hyd/2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD ‘ A ‘ BENCH, HYDERABAD.
BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
(Through Virtual Hearing)

ITA No.1560 & 1597/Hyd/2019
(Assessment Year : 2014-15)

Shri Ashok Reddy Cheruvu,
Plot No.18, Card Master Enclave,
205, Akbar Road, Bowenpally,
Secunderabad-9
PAN AATPC 4089N
Appellant 

Vs. 

Dy. Commissioner of Income
Tax-1,
International Taxation,
Hyderabad.
Respondent/Cross-Appellant

Assessee By : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao.
Revenue By : Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey (D.R.)

Date of Hearing : 23.02.2021.
Date of Pronouncement : 26.032021.

O R D E R

Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. :

These assessee’s and Revenue’s cross appeals for Asst. Year 2014-15 arisefrom the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Hyderabad’s order dt.26.08.2019 passed in case No.0220/CIT(A)-10/2016-17, in proceedings under Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).

 Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2. The assessee's appeal ITA 1560/Hyd/2019 following substantive grievances in Ground Nos.1 to19 as under :

“ 1. The order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent the order General is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant ground.

2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred inupholding the order of the A.O. on the issue of bringing to taxthe capital gains in the hands of the appellant basing Factualon the un-accomplished Joint Development Agreement Groundentered with MI s. Sumathura Infracon Pvt Ltd on behalf of M/s. Vasavi Holdings.

3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erredby not properly appreciating the factual position that theabove original asset (Land) has been transferred by the assessee to M/s. Vasavi Holdings vide registered sale deed inDoc. No.8408 on 27.08.2014 by way of a sale, basing on the agreement of sale already entered on dt: 09.05.2013.

4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred inupholding the assessment order of the A.O in the matter of workup of the capital gain basing on cost of estimation of the flats allotted to the appellant and not basing on the market value of land transferred. 

To know more in details find the attachment file
 

 

Guest
on 19 April 2021
Published in Income Tax
Views : 37
downloaded 30 times
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags