Case Law Details
Case Name : Anjan Shivraju Prakash Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Appeal Number : I.T.A No.5083/Mum/2019
Date of Judgement/Order : 28/03/2022
Related Assessment Year : 2013-14
Courts :
All ITAT ITAT Mumbai
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored
Anjan Shivraju Prakash Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
We find that the assessee purchased the impugned flat on 22/02/2007 and sold the same on 03/03/2012. The only issue dispute in this appeal is whether the capital gain arose in respect of sale of three car parking spaces could be treated
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Sponsored
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
The episode, i.e. the reported itat order , if critically looked through, insightfully, through an ideally chosen best designed but most powerful ‘lens’, may be found to make for an episode, inspiring for more than one reason; mainly for the reason that how any simple but straight forward proposition could be rendered , knowingly or unwittingly, too complicated to enable any easy solution or resolution.
For now, personally wish that anyone else more competent and better equipped should not mind but venture to write a critique highlighting how things could go patently wrong by reason of more than one making a negative contribution; instead playing a positive role !
Bye for now !!
INSTANT
The view taken, prima facie, makes a mockery of /blatantly runs counter to the thus far prevailing , taken as the correct legal position. For, according to the governing law , pre or post RERA regime, the area of ‘car parking’, so marked and sold as part and parcel of the flat or apartment is always and continues to remain inseparable from the flat or apartment . For more, go through the host of material available, for free, in public domain!
courtesy