Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN
ORDER
PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM
This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2014-15. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax-33, Mumbai [in short ‘CIT(A)’] and arises out of the assessment completed u/s 143(3)(ii) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the ‘Act’).
The grounds of appeal
filed by the assessee read as under:
1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming and holding that the capital gain has accrued on entering into Kashmira Modi No. 11 on 04/04/2013 registered on 05.04.2014 as exchange liable to transfer.
2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming and holding that the capital gain has accrued on entering into redevelopment agreement in respect of flat No. 11 owned by the appellant.
3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of exemption u/s 54 in respect of flat no. 7. a. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming and incorrect adoption of pro-rata value of flat no. 11 amounting to Rs.6,20,60,880/- while calculating the sale value of flat no. 11 by a method which is nowhere prescribed under the law. b. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in overlooking Stamp Duty Valuation of redevelopment agreement in respect of flat No. 11 while calculating the value of flat NO. 1102/02 which ought to have been followed. c. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in overlooking Stamp Duty Valuation of redevelopment agreement in respect of flat No. 11 comprises of leasehold land and construction cost and therefore section 50C could not be applied to leasehold land as per various judgments of various authorities. d. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the assessment order in which the Assessing Officer followed directions of JCIT u/s 144A without providing opportunity to the appellant to rebut the directions of JCIT u/s 144A.
4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in confirming in making enhancement of Rs.1,12,54,187/- towards amount received from developers as Short Term Capital Gain although the same is against 3 orders of Mumbai ITAT.