Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Smt. Bachupally Laxmi (alias Routhu Laxmi) Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
Appeal Number : ITA No. 571/Hyd/2020
Date of Judgement/Order : 27/05/2021
Related Assessment Year : 2013-14
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Smt. Bachupally Laxmi (alias Routhu Laxmi) Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)

For the purpose of computation of LTCG arising out of the development agreement cum GPA, the Assessing Officer has accepted that the assessee has acquired the flats as on 9.11.2009 and therefore, in the year 2012 when the assessee has sold the flat, the holding period has to be held as more than 3 years and the provisions of sub-section 3 of section 54F are not applicable. Similarly, the gain arising out of the sale of flat also has to be held as LTCG and not STCG as held by the Assessing Officer. She further submitted that in the case of co-owners i.e. Smt. Devi Reddy Renuka and Smt. Nallapattu Saraswati, the respective CIT (A)s have held the issue in favour of the assessees and the Revenue has not filed any appeals to the Tribunal. Therefore, according to her, the rule of uniformity and consistency has to be adopted and the same decision is to be taken in the case of the present assessees as well.

ITAT observed that the assessees have given their landed property for development and their share of flats have been identified and allotted by way of the said agreement itself. Therefore, the respective CIT (A)’s in the case of Smt. Devi Reddy Renuka and Smt. Nallapattu Saraswati have held that the assessees therein are deemed to have acquired the property on the date of development agreement itself and thus, the period of holding has to be held to be more than 3 years. In the case of co-owners, the Revenue cannot take a different stand. If the Revenue has accepted the decision of the CIT (A)’s, in the cases of Renuka and Saraswati, I am of the opinion that the same decision has to be taken in the case of the assessees before this Tribunal also. Therefore, by adopting the principles of consistency and uniformity, I hold that the exemption u/s 54F cannot be withdrawn in the relevant A.Ys and the capital gain arising out of sale of flat has to be treated as LTCG as done in the case of co-owners. Thus, the appeals of both the assessees are allowed.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT HYDERABAD

ITA Nos.571 & 572/Hyd/2020 are the appeals filed by Smt. Bachupally Laxmi (Alias Routhu Laxmi) for the A.Ys 2013-14 and 2014-15, while ITA No.573/Hyd/2020 is the appeal filed by Sri Koushik Routhu for the A.Y 2014-15. All these appeals are filed by the assessees against the separate but similar orders of the CIT (A)-3, Hyderabad, dated 6.1.2020. Therefore, both the assessees are related to each other and the facts and circumstances and the grounds raised are similar. Therefore, all the three appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common and consolidated order.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031