SHUVRO CHATTARAJ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT , BURDWAN

ITA 226/KOL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 August 2024AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)16 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the date of the registered joint development agreement should be considered the date of transfer for capital gains computation. Deductions under Section 54EC were allowed, and Section 54F deduction was to be allowed based on the year of house completion.

What were the facts?

The assessee received payments for property development over several years. The PCIT revised the assessment order, considering capital gains arising from a property transfer in an earlier year as short-term capital gains and denying deductions under sections 54E and 54F. The assessee appealed this revision.

What were the issues?

Whether the PCIT correctly revised the assessment order by reclassifying capital gains and denying deductions. The correct assessment year for capital gains and eligibility for deductions under Sections 54EC and 54F were key issues.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3),Section 54EC,Section 54F,Section 49(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Jain, FCA
For Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT, DR
Hearing: 11.06.2024Pronounced: 28.08.2024

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the revision order of the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Burdwan (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. PCIT” passed u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2015-16 vide No.99- 101/PCIT/BWN/263/2019-20 dated 29.05.2020. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

“1. That the appellant pray for admission of appeal filed with a delay of 645 days for the exceptional circumstances and facts of the case, beyond his control. For the purpose, the appellant had submitted the prayer and

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →