Case Law Details
Surajkumar & Sons Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT Mumbai held that the assessee not entitled to deduction u/s 48(i) of the Act for repayment of the mortgage debt which was incurred subsequent to the acquisition of the property and not for the purpose of acquisition.
Facts- The assessee is a partnership firm and has not filed its return of income during the impugned year for the reasons that it did not have taxable income. The assessee’s case was re-opened after duly recording the reasons for re-opening u/s. 147 of the Act vide notice u/s. 148 dated 31.03.2017 and notice u/s. 142(1) dated 13.06.2017 were issued and served on the assessee.
The assessee raised the objections to the reasons for re-opening stating that it had not received any notice u/s. 148 and that the re-opening was time barred. The assessee has also raised objection that it had not purchased any property during the year under consideration and the reasons for re-opening was hence bad-in-law.
AO dealt with the objections raised by the assessee and passed the assessment order dated u/s. 143(3) of the Act determining total income at Rs. 10,03,53,900/- as being the Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on sale of property. CIT(A) upheld the order of Ld. AO.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
