Sanjay Jain, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi
The appeal is partly allowed
ITA 146/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2016AY 2010-11
Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O.P. Kant Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sanjay Jain, Vs. Acit, Chamber No. 488, Circle 37(1), Delhi High Court Block-Ii. New Delhi. Sher Shah Road, New Delhi. (Pan: Aagpj8607A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ra Bansal & Smt. Prem Lata Bansal, Adv. Department By : Smt. Anima Barnwal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 15 :06.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned First Appellate Order On The Following Grounds: 1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.16,70,574/- Made By The Assessing Officer To The Long Term Capital Gain Declared By The Assessee At Rs.1,47,823/-. Since The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Is Contrary To Law & Therefore, Liable To Be Set Aside. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Ignoring The Cost Of Improvement While Calculating Long Term Capital Gain Earned By The Assessee On Transfer Of Property.
For Appellant: Shri RA Bansal & Smt. Prem LataFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Barnwal, DR
Section 28Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 48Section 54
…particular year, it cannot confer jurisdiction on the Department to tax that income in that year even though legally such income did not pertain to that year". To the similar effect are :- 269 ITR 01 (Born), Nirmala L Mehta vs A Balasubrarnaninan, CIT & Ors. 276 ITR 165(Guj), S R Koshti vs CIT It is needless to say that according to Article 265 of the Constitution of India, there can be no\taxation without authority of law. Acquiescence cannot take away from a party, the relief which he is entitled to in contravention of Article 265 ' In view of above, it is submitted that the capital gain arose on sale of prop…
