Back
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (MUMBAI BENCH)
SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACJ, SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, J
AMMAR ABDULLA ARSIWALA MUMBAI – Appellant
Versus
ITO (IT)-1(1)(2) MUMBAI – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. property purchase and tds deduction (Para 2) |
| 2. assessee's argument on compliance (Para 3) |
| 3. dr's counter-argument (Para 4) |
| 4. rejoinder by ld.ar (Para 5) |
| 5. order set aside and restored (Para 6) |
ORDER
The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dt.29-08-2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-55, Mumbai [„Ld.CIT(A)‟] and it relates to AY. 2016-17. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the demand raised by the AO u/s.201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) and also the interest levied by the AO u/s. 201(1A) of the Act.
3. The Ld.AR submitted that the seller of the property, Shri Shabbir Sarafali Golawala has filed his return of income for the year under consideration, wherein he has declared capital loss arising from the sale of the property that was purchased by the assessee. Accordingly, he submitted that the assessee herein shall be covered by concession given in the first proviso to section 201(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld.AR submitted that the AO was not right in raising the demand u/s. 201(1) of the Act. The Ld.AR further submitted that the seller of the property was not ultimately liab
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
