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

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. "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."