INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (MUMBAI BENCH)
Vikram Singh Yadav, AM, Kavitha Rajagopal, JM
Mahendra Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Officer – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal challenges cit(a) order on capital gains assessment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. parties argue transfer date and possession timing. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. section 50c applies to leasehold rights akin to ownership. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
ORDER
Per Kavitha Rajagopal, JM:
This appeal filed by the assessee challenges the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC” for short) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2009-10.
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal has erred in facts and in law in confirming the assessment of the capital gains arising from transfer of leasehold land and building thereon in Assessment Year 2009-10 as against in Assessment Year 2003-04 offered by the Appellant.
2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal has erred in accepting the findings of the Remand Report of learned Assessing Officer and thereby in not discussing and appreciating the facts brought out by the appellant in response to the Remand Report.
3. The Learned Com
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.