Avail 20% discount on updated CA lectures for Dec 21 .Use Code RESULT20 !! Call : 088803-20003

ICICI

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

L. Vivekananda, Mysore Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Mysore

LinkedIn


Court :
ITAT Bangalore

Brief :
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of the CIT(A) dated 31.10.2017. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

Citation :
ITA No.1087/Bang/2018

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI,
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND
SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.1087/Bang/2018

Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri L. Vivekananda M/s. Vivek Hotels, 1294/1-B J.L.B. Road Mysuru-570 005
PAN NO : AASPV6693A
APPELLANT 

Vs.

ACIT Circle-1(1), Residency Road Nazarbad Mysuru-570 010
RESPONDENT

Appellant by : Shri G.N. Bhat, A.R.
Respondent by : Smt. R. Premi, D.R.

Date of Hearing : 17.11.2020
Date of Pronouncement : 18.11.2020

O R D E R

PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of the CIT(A) dated 31.10.2017. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

1. The order of the CIT(Appeals). in so far as it is prejudicial to the appellant, is opposed to law, probabilities, weight of evidences, and facts and circumstances of the case.

2 The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in not recognising that theappellant acquired the right in the asset at No.S-4, SiddarthaLayout, Nazarbad Mohalla, Mysore in the financial year 1986-87 when the allotment letter was issued by Mysore Urban Development Authority and he made the full payment towardsthe cost of the asset and became entitled to take the inflated cost of acquisition of the Financial Year 1986-87 while working out the capital gain arising from the transfer of that asset.

3. The learned CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate that the appellant "held- the property in question right from the date of payments and no cost was paid later to MUDA, which allotted the site in favour of the appellant, and these facts establish that the property was acquired in the financial year 1986-87 itself.

4. The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in not considering thedecisions of various High Courts, including the jurisdictional High Court and orders of ITATs relied upon by the appellant during the appeal proceedings. which squarely apply to the facts of the appellant's case.

5.. The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in not allowing the inflated, costof improvement on the construction of a building at a cost of Rs.3,00,000 as claimed by the appellant before the Assessing Officer.

6. The Learned CIT(Appeals) erred in not noticing that the appellanthad offered income from house property in respect of the structureexisting on the land for many years and had shown the property in the Wealth – tax return also, which all corroborate the fact that improvement was effected in construction of a building.

7. The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in not specificallydealing with this ground of appeal and there is no discussion in his appellate order about the claim of the appellant.

8. Without prejudice to the right of the appellant toapproach the Assessing Officer to give credit for TCS as per 26AS as directed by the CIT(Appeals) in his order, it issubmitted that the CIT(Appeals) ought to have specificallydirected the Assessing Officer to give credit for TCS of Rs.18,165/- as claimed in the return while computing the tax liability.

9. The appellant craves leave to add, delete, substitute any of the grounds before the hearing of appeal.

10. The appellant, therefore, prays that the ITAT may bepleased to set aside the order of CIT(Appeals), delete the additions made in the order of assessment, direct the AssessingOfficer to accept the income returned and give credit for TCS as claimed in the return of income, in the interest of justice.

To know more in details find the attachment file

 

Guest
on 26 November 2020
Published in Income Tax
Views : 23
downloaded 4 times
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags