SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

R.L.SANGANI, B.M.KOTHARI
Income-tax Officer – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Kashmiraben M. Parikh – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
K.L. Maheshwari,J.M. Trivedi

ORDER

B.M. Kothari, A.M. - Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal :

"1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that an amount of Rs. 16,675 is long-term capital gain arising on account of sale of property.

2. The CIT(A) ought to have held that as the assessee never claimed the amount of Rs. 16,675 as long-term capital as also in the statement of income the assessee has offered the amount of Rs. 16,175 as "Profit on sale of Flat" the assessee has no right to file appeal.

2. The learned Departmental Representative contended that the assessee did not raise any claim before the Assessing Authority that the capital gain derived by the assessee on the sale of flat is long-term capital gain. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Addl. CIT v. Gurjargravures P. Ltd. [1978] CTR (SC) 1 : [1978] 111 ITR 1 (SC), he submitted that no such claim can be raised for the first time before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has, therefore, erred in entertaining the said ground. As regards merits, he submitted that the assessee had booked the flat in November, 1978 by paying a deposit of Rs. 1,000 only. When all the flats were completely booked by the builders, the p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top