Case Law Details
Manoj Mediratta Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
The authorities acknowledged that there was construction of two floors, with one floor being sold. The appellant presented a technical report on the valuation of the construction cost. The appellant requested that the authorities be directed to set off the claimed cost of acquisition. The learned DR opposed these submissions and supported the lower authorities’ orders. The CIT(Appeals) upheld the addition, stating that the appellant failed to substantiate the cost of construction. However, it is admitted that the appellant sold a floor based on the construction of roof rights. ITAT concluded that the benefit of cost of acquisition should have been given to the appellant. ITAT set aside the impugned order and remanded the issue to the assessing authority for fresh consideration, taking into account the submissions and the report of the approved valuer provided by the appellant. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-5, New Delhi, dated 31.05.2019, pertaining to the assessment year 2016-17. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
“1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 30,13,432.00 on account of Long Term Capital Gain on sale of House Property by rejecting the cost of acquisition as submitted by the appellant and also disallowing commission paid on s le
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
