INCOME TAX OFFICER 25(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. RADHAKRISHNA G KHATRI HUF, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1149/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 September 2019AY 2010-112 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The primary reason for dismissal was that the tax effect of the appeal was below the limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals before the ITAT.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order concerning the assessment year 2010-11. The appeal involved the computation of capital gains on the transfer of tenancy rights to a builder.

What were the issues?

Whether the transfer of tenancy rights constitutes a transfer for capital gains, and if the tax effect of the appeal meets the CBDT's threshold for maintainability.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(47),Section 53A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Ravish Sood (JM)

For Respondent: Ms. R. Kavitha
Hearing: 13.9.2019Pronounced: 17.9.2019

Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 11.12.2017 and pertains to A.Y. 2010-11.

2.

The grounds of appeal

1.

read as under :- 1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred to consider the fact that the assessee has transferred his tenancy rights to the builder within the meaning of section 2(47) of the income tax Act, 1961 and transfer of the same calls for the computation of capital gains.

2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. . CIT(A) has erred to consider the fact the assessee has not only selling and transferring or exchanging the asset but also extinguishing his rights and interest in their old property by entering into two agreement and thereby allowing the possession of the flat to the builder after receiving money, a contract of a nature referred to in the section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1982.

3. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld, CIT(A) has erred to consider that fact the assessee himself claimed the transaction before the AO as transfer and claimed exemption u/s. 54/54F

2 Radhakrishna G. Khatri HUF during the assessment proceedings as he had not claimed it in the return of income filed and was beyond the period of three years and the claim of the assessee was not allowed."

4. ""On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred to consider the fact that the assessee received from the builder funds amounting to Rs. 23,65,972/- which forms part of the compensation received against transfer of tenancy rights and the same has to be considered for capital gains."

5.

"The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and That of the Assessing Officer be restored."

3.

At the outset, we note that the tax effect in this case is below the limit fixed by the CBDT for filing the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal vide latest CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 8.8.2019. Learned Departmental Representative has not been able to point out that present appeal was in any of the exceptions carved out in the said circular. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on account of tax effect as not maintainable.

4.

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 17.9.2019.

More judgments on Section 2(47)

All 851 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(47) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →