Viveek Mathreja, Mumbai vs. ITO 21 (2)(4), Mumbai
In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed
ITA 7645/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2021AY 2011-12
Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 7645/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2011-12) Viveck Mathreja, Plot No.5, Trishul, Road No.6, Hatkesh Society, Juhu, Vile Parle, Mumbai-400056. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Pan: Acxpm8278M बनाम Vs. Ito, 21(2)(4), Kautilya Bhavan, ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent Bandra East, Mumbai-400050. अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. N.R. Agarwal "ितवाद" "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Sanjay J. Sethi सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 01/06/2021 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 27/08/2021 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, J.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-37, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 30.11.2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. 2. Sh. N.R. Agarwal Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Narrating The Facts Of The Case Submitted, That The Assessee During The Period Relevant To Ay Under Appeal Had Sold An Immovable Property For A Consideration Of Rs. 1.60 Crores. After Deducting Index Cost Of Acquisition, Brokerage, Stamp Duty, Cost
For Appellant: Sh. N.R. AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay J. Sethi
Section 48(2)
…f indexation should be allowed to the assessee from the first date when the land was held by the assessee. In support of his contentions, the ld. AR placed reliance on following decisions: 1. Lata G. Rohra Vs. DCIT 121 SOT 541 (Mum.). 2. Nita A. Patel Vs. ITO 132 TTJ 468 (Mum.). आअसं. 7645/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2011-12) 4. On the other hand, Sh. Sanjay J. Sethi representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing the appeal of assessee. The ld. DR submitted that expenditure claimed by the assessee in the form of lease rents, water proofing charges, vacant land tax/property tax a…
