SMT. PADMINI RAMACHANDRAN,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

Once indexed cost of building is computed, and when this is aggregated with the indexed cost of improvement of Rs.7,77,328/-, the capital gains that would arise might or might not be less than the deduction of Rs.8,80,000/- allowed by the AO himself. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the other issues raised by the assessee in relation to capital gains need not be adjudicated at this point of time. However, if the computation of capital gains done by the AO afresh in accordance with our directions result in capital gains in excess of Rs.8,80,000/-, assessee would be free to raise the grounds relating to its investments u/s.54F of the Act, done in the property. Grounds 1 to 7 of the assessee is treated as partly allowed.

Vide ground 8, grievance of the assessee is that depreciation on computer is not allowed despite adequate proof being provided. We find that in its appeal before the CIT (A), assessee had raised altogether 8 grounds and in none of the grounds, the issue regarding depreciation on computer was raised. We are, therefore, of the opinion that this ground raised by the assessee does not arise

Since the appeal itself on which the stay petition arises, has been disposed of as above, stay petition is dismissed as infructuous.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous.