ITO, Ward-10(2), Hyd, Hyderabad V. K. Chandrasekhar, Sec'bad, Secunderabad

ITA 1189/HYD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 118922514 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 09-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B KURMI NAIDU
• Assessee Lawyers: K A SAI PRASAD
• Keywords: Benefit of exemption
• Section: 54F; 6; 10; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D.MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. ASSESSMENT YEAR APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1 1 88/HYD/2015 2007 - 08 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(2), HYDERABAD LATE K.JAIPAL, L/R. OF SMT. K.MANJULA, SECUNDERABAD (PAN AAYPK 8709 Q) 1 1 89/HYD/2015 2007 - 08 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(2), HYDERABAD SHRI CHAN D RASEKHAR KONTHAM, SECUNDERABAD (PAN AAZPK 5129 Q) 1 1 90/HYD/2015 2007 - 08 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(2), HYDERABAD SHRI K.MURALI, SECUNDERABAD (PAN AXYPK 7234 P ) 1 1 91/HYD/2015 2007 - 08 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(2), HYDERABAD LATE K.SRINIVAS RAO, L/R. SMT.K.GEETA RANI, SECUNDERABAD (PAN AAYPK 8698 Q Q) 1 1 92/HYD/2015 2007 - 08 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(2), HYDERABAD SHRI K.NARSING RAO, SECUNDERABAD (PAN AAYPK 8712 H ) 1 1 93/HYD/2015 2007 - 08 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(2), HYDERABAD SHRI K.VENU, SECUNDERABAD (PAN AAYPK 8723 A ) 1 1 94/HYD/2015 2007 - 08 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(2), HYDERABAD SHRI K.NARAYANA RAO, SECUNDERABAD (PAN AAYPK 8705 C ) APPELLANTS BY : SHRI B.KURMI NAIDU RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.A.SAIPRASAD DATE OF HEARING 19.11.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT - ITA NO.1188 TO 1194/HYD/2015 SHRI K.VENU AND OTHERS SECUNDERABAD 2 O R D E R PER BENCH : THESE SEVEN APPEALS ARE BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) 6, HYDERABA D DATED 29.7.2015 IN THIS GROUP OF SEVEN ASSESSEES BEING CO-SHARERS. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS IS WITH REFERENCE TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER S.54F ON THE UNITS ALLOTTED TO THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES, CONSEQUENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED AND COMMON G ROUNDS RAISED. HENCE, WE HAVE HEARD THESE APPEALS TOGETHER AND DECIDE THE M BY THIS COMMON ORDER. FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION, THE FACTS IN THE CASE O F SHRI K.VENU (ITA NO.1193/HYD/2015) ARE DISCUSSED HEREINAFTER. 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PROCEEDINGS UND ER S.147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 ON THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH CO-OW NERS, AS THEY HAVE TRANSFERRED A PLOT OF LAND ADMEASURING 7,750 SQ. YA RDS OPEN LAND SITUATED AT BEGUMPET, HYDERABAD IN FAVOUR OF THE DEVELOPER, M/S . SHREEMUKH CREATORS. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE FOLLOW ING FACTS WERE ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE- 1 THE ASSESSEE AND HIS 7 BROTHERS HAD TOGETHER ACQUIR ED THE PROPERTY; 2 EACH OF THE CO-OWNERS WAS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE FIVE FLATS OUT OF THE TOTAL 40 FLATS TO BE RECEIVED BY THE CO-OWNERS IN LIEU OF SURRENDERING 60% OF THE RIGHT/TITLE INTEREST IN THE LAND; 3 THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM TRANSACTION WERE CHA RGEABLE TO TAX IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08; ITA NO.1188 TO 1194/HYD/2015 SHRI K.VENU AND OTHERS SECUNDERABAD 3 4 THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION ATTRIBUTABLE TO 60% OF THE PLOT AREA WAS RS.4,28,29,800 AND THE ASSESSEES SHARE TH EREIN WAS RS.53,53,725. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED LONG TERM CAPITAL GA INS AT RS.47,30,228 ALLOWING EXEMPTION REPRESENTING PROPORTIONATE COST OF ONE FLAT OUT OF FIVE FLATS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CHARGED THE BALANCE SU M OF RS.36,59,483 TO TAX. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE PROCEEDINGS UN DER S.147, BUT THE SAME WERE UPHELD BY THE CIT(A). HOWEVER, ON THE QU ANTUM OF EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE GOT RELIEF, A GAINST WHICH REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. BEFORE THE CIT(A), ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT HE WA S ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION UNDER S.54F ON ALL THE FIVE FLATS RECEIVE D IN LIEU OF HIS SHARE IN THE AREA OF THE PLOT AGREED TO BE TRANSFERRED BY HIM. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT EXEMPTION WAS AVAILABLE IN RESPECT OF THE GROSS QUA NTUM OF INVESTMENT IN RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROPERTY, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NUM BER OF UNITS THEREIN. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS- (A) CIT V/S. SYED ALI ADIL (33 TAXMANN.COM.212) AP HC (B) VITHAL KANJEEVARAM VS. ITO (ITA NO.422/H/13 DT. 10. 07.13) ITAT HYDERABAD (144 ITD 325) (C) CIT V/S. GITA DUGGAL DELHI HIGH COURT (D) K.G.VYAS VS. ITO (161 ITD 195) BOM. (E) ITO V/S. PC RAMAKRISHNA (108 ITD 251)-CHENNAI (F) CIT V/S. D.ANANDA BASAPPA (309 ITR 329) KAR. HC (G) CIT V/S. K.G.RUKMINIAMMA (331 ITR 211)-KAR. HC (H) A.P. HIGH COURT IN SYED ALI (I) CIT V/S. V.R. KARPAGAM DT. 18.08.14 OF CHENNAI HIGH COURT ITA NO.1188 TO 1194/HYD/2015 SHRI K.VENU AND OTHERS SECUNDERABAD 4 (J) N.REVATHI V/S. ITO WARD 6(4) HYDERABAD (ITA NO.67/H YD/2013 ORDER DATED 2.4.2014) (K) AP HIGH COURT IN 169 ITR 564 THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN HER BRIEF ORDER ALLOWED THE C ONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE STATING AS UNDER- 05.2.2. THE SUBMISSION HAS BEEN CONSIDERED . IN VIEW OF THE RATIO OF THE DECISIONS CITED ABOVE, IT HAS TO BE HE LD THAT ENTIRE INVESTMENT IN THE NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROPERTY, I RRESPECTIVE OF THE NUMBER OF UNITS THEREOF, IS ELIGIBLE FOR COMPUTATIO N OF EXEMPTION U/S. 54F. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO RECOMPUTE THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ACCORDINGLY. 5. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE REITERA TED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUBMIT THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION ONLY IN RESPECT OF ONE APART MENT OUT OF THE FIVE RECEIVED BY HIM AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RESTRICT ED THE CLAIM MADE UNDER S.54F TO ONE FLAT ONLY IN THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE PUNJA B AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PAVAN ARYA V/S. CIT (ITA NO. 613 OF 2010 DATED 13-12-2010, REPORTED IN 2011-TIOL-01-HC) . HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCHES IN THE CASE OF ACIT V/S. SHRI D. SUDHAKAR RAM (2012) 49- SOT 90(MUM) AND BERTHA T. ALMEIDA V/S. ITO (2012) TAX PUB. (DT) 831 (MUM-TRIB). 6. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN REPLY, HOWEVER, PLACED BEFORE US A PAPER BOOK, BRINGING ON RECORD BEFORE U S THE LETTERS AND THE DECLARATIONS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUBMIT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RESTRICTED THE CLAIM TO ONE FLAT AS CONTENDED B Y THE REVENUE. FURTHER, IT ITA NO.1188 TO 1194/HYD/2015 SHRI K.VENU AND OTHERS SECUNDERABAD 5 WAS SUBMITTED THAT THAT THE FACTS ARE NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE, AND AS FOR THE ONLY ISSUE IN DISPUTE BEING WHETHER THE ASSESSE E WOULD BE ENTITLED TO CLAIM EXEMPTION ON ALL THE UNITS OR ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT, HE REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. S MT. V.R.KARPAGAM (SUPRA), WHEREIN HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS REFERRED TO THE AMEN DMENT BROUGHT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE JUDGM ENT OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. GITA DUGGAL (357 ITR 153), IN WHICH THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS NOT A ADMITTED FURTHER APPEAL BY THE REVENUE, AS REPORTED IN 228 TAXMAN 62(SC). ON THIS PROPOSITION, THE LEA RNED COUNSEL ALSO RELIED ON THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. SYED ALI ADIL (33 TAXMANN.COM.212)(AP), AND VITTAL KRISHNA CONJEEVARA M, SECUNDERABAD (ITTA NO.588 OF 2013 DATED 6.1.2013). LEARNED COUNSEL AL SO PLACED ON RECORD THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH AT HYDERABAD IN TH E CASE OF N. REVATHI V/S. IT (45 TAXMANN.COM.30 (HYD.) TRIB). 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND PERUSED THE VA RIOUS ORDERS PLACED ON RECORD. THE DISPUTE IS WHETHER A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE STATED IN S.54/S.54F FOR ALLOWING DEDUCTION MEANS A SINGLE RE SIDENTIAL HOUSE OR ONE CONSISTING OF MULTIPLE UNITS. AS FOR THE FACTS INV OLVED HEREIN, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED FIVE FLATS IN DIFFERENT FLOORS OF THE SAME BUILDING. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTRICTED THE DEDUCTION TO ONE SUCH UNIT/F LAT, WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION FOR ALL THE FLATS RECEIVED IN TER MS OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. THEREFORE, THE QUESTION TO BE DECIDED IS WHETHER A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WOULD INCLUDE MULTIPLE FLATS/RESIDENTIAL UNI TS AS WELL. THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF MARAS IN ITS D ECISION IN CIT V/S. SMT. V.R.KARPAGAM (SUPRA), WHEREIN THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT TO S.54 AND 54F WAS ALSO CONSIDERED AND HELD AS UNDER- 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED STANDING COUNSEL APPE ARING FOR THE REVENUE AT LENGTH AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS PLACED BEFORE THIS COURT AND THE DECISION RELIED ON BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE C ASE OF CIT V. SMT. ITA NO.1188 TO 1194/HYD/2015 SHRI K.VENU AND OTHERS SECUNDERABAD 6 K.G.RUKMINIAMMA REPORTED IN 331 ITR 211. WE FIND TH AT THE RELEVANT PROVISION IS THIS CASE IS SECTION 54F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS: 54F. CAPITAL GAIN ON TRANSFER OF CERTAIN CAPITAL AS SETS NOT TO BE CHARGED IN CASE OF INVESTMENT IN RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. -- (1) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (4), W HERE, IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE BEING AN INDIVIDUAL OR A HINDU UNDIVIDED F AMILY, THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISES FROM THE TRANSFER OF ANY LONG-TERM CAPI TAL ASSET, NOT BEING A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFE RRED TO AS THE ORIGINAL ASSET), AND THE ASSESSEE HAS, WITHIN A PERIOD OF ON E YEAR BEFORE TWO YEARS AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLA CE PURCHASED, OR HAS WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AFTER THAT DATE CONSTRUCTED, A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERR ED TO AS THE NEW ASSET), THE CAPITAL GAIN SHALL BE DEALT WITH IN ACC ORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, THAT IS TO SA Y,-- (A) IF THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET IS NOT LESS THAN T HE NET CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET, THE WHOLE OF SUCH CA PITAL GAIN SHALL NOT BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 45: (B) IF THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET IS LESS THAN THE N ET CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET, SO MUCH OF THE CAPIT AL GAIN AS BEARS TO THE WHOLE OF THE CAPITAL GAIN THE SAME PROPORTION A S THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET BEARS TO THE NET CONSIDERATION, SHALL NOT BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 45: PROVIDED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL APPLY WHERE- (A) THE ASSESSEE, (I) OWNS MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, OTHER THA N THE NEW ASSET, ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET ; OR (II) PURCHASES ANY RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, OTHER THAN TH E NEW ASSET, WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET ; OR ITA NO.1188 TO 1194/HYD/2015 SHRI K.VENU AND OTHERS SECUNDERABAD 7 (III) CONSTRUCTS ANY RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, OTHER THAN THE NEW ASSET, WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET; AND (B) THE INCOME FROM SUCH RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, OTHER T HAN THE ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OWNED ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET, IS CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD NCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERT Y 9. IT IS RELEVANT TO NOTE HEREIN THAT AN AMENDMENT WAS MADE TO THE ABOVE-SAID PROVISION WITH REGARD TO THE WORD 'A' BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2014, WHICH WILL COME INTO EFFECT FROM 01.04.2 015. THE SAID AMENDMENT READS AS FOLLOWS: '32A. WORDS CONSTRUCTED, ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN INDIA SHALL BE SUBSTITUTED FOR CONSTRUCTED, A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2014, WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2015.' 10. THE ABOVE-SAID AMENDMENT TO SECTION 54F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, WHICH WILL COME INTO EFFECT ONLY FROM 01.04.2015, M AKES IT VERY CLEAR THAT THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 54F OF THE INCOME TAX A CT WILL BE APPLICABLE TO CONSTRUCTED, ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN INDIA AND THAT CLARIFIES THE SITUATION IN THE PRESENT CASE, I.E, POST AMENDMENT, VIZ., FROM 01.04.2015, THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 54F WILL BE APPL ICABLE TO ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN INDIA. PRIOR TO THE SAID AMEND MENT, IT IS CLEAR THAT A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WOULD INCLUDE MULTIPLE FLATS/RE SIDENTIAL UNITS AS IN THE PRESENT CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS GOT FIVE RE SIDENTIAL FLATS. WE MAY ALSO MENTION HERE THAT ALL THE AUTHORITIES BELO W HAVE CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE AGREEMENT SIGNED BY THE ASSESSE E WITH M/S.MOUNT HOUSING INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., IS THAT THE ASSESSEE W ILL RECEIVE 43.75% OF THE BUILT-UP AREA AFTER DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS CONST RUED AS ONE BLOCK, WHICH MAY BE ONE OR MORE FLATS. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER WHAT WAS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ONLY EQUIVALENT OF 56.25% OF LAND TRANSFERRED, EQUIVALENT TO 43.75% OF BUILT UP AREA RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS BUILT UP AREA GOT TRANSLATED INTO FI VE FLATS. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE TRANSACTION IN THIS CASE WA S NOT WITH REGARD TO THE NUMBER OF FLATS BUT WITH REGARD TO THE PERCENTA GE OF THE BUILT UP AREA, VIS-A-VIS, THE UNDIVIDED SHARE OF LAND. ITA NO.1188 TO 1194/HYD/2015 SHRI K.VENU AND OTHERS SECUNDERABAD 8 11. IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS COURT, BY ORDER DATED 04.01.2012 IN T.C.(A)NO.656 OF 2005 HELD AS FOLLOWS: 'THE ABOVE PROVISION REFERS TO A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE MEANING THEREBY THAT EVEN IF THERE ARE FOUR DIFFERENT FLATS AND IF IT IS CONSIDERED FOR THE PROPERTY ASSESSED AS ONE UNIT AND ONE DOOR NUMBER I S GIVEN, IT SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS A RESIDENTIAL UNIT, NAMELY, ONE UNI T. IN THAT SENSE, THE SAID PROVISION IS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE.' 12. IN THE DECISION REPORTED IN (2012) 75 DTR 56 (D R.(SMT.) P.K.VASANTHI RANGARAJAN, THIS COURT, WHILE DEALING WITH THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F, FOLLOWED THE ABOVE-SAI D DECISION OF THIS COURT IN T.C.(A)NO.656 OF 2005 AND GRANTED THE BENE FIT TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ON THE INVE STMENT MADE IN THE FOUR FLATS. 13. HENCE, THE ABOVE-SAID DECISIONS OF THIS COURT M AKE IT CLEAR THAT THE PROPERTY SHOULD BE ASSESSED AS ONE UNIT, EVEN THOUG H DIFFERENT FLATS ARE AVAILABLE 8. THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. VITTAL KRISHNA CONJEEVARAM (SUPRA), FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. SYED ALI ADIL (SUPRA) AND THE DECISION OF THE DELHI HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. GITA DUGGAL (SUPRA) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REV ENUE, CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ITAT. THE ABOVE JUDGMENTS LAY DOWN A PRINCI PLE THAT MERELY BECAUSE A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE CONSISTS OF SEVERAL INDEPENDENT R ESIDENTIAL UNITS, DEDUCTION UNDER S.54/S.54F COULD NOT DISALLOWED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT V/S. SYED ALI ADIL (SUPRA) AS APPROVED IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. VITTAL KRISHNA CONJEEVARAM (SUPRA) AND THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND MADRAS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE HAVE NO OPTION THAN TO C ONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WHICH IS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE. ITA NO.1188 TO 1194/HYD/2015 SHRI K.VENU AND OTHERS SECUNDERABAD 9 9. WE ARE ALSO AWARE THAT THE HON'BLE PUNJAB AND H ARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PAWAN ARYA V/S.CIT (SUPRA) HAS NOT APPROVED THE ABOVE PROPOSITION, BUT THE BINDING DECISIONS OF THE JURIS DICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASES DISCUSSED ABOVE ARE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE , AND THEREFORE, THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL CA NNOT BE ACCEPTED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, BE ING ITA NO.1193/HYD/2015, IS DISMISSED. 11. FACTS IN ALL THE OTHER APPEALS, BEING ITA NOS. 1188 TO 1192 AND 1194/HYD/2015, ARE ALSO SIMILAR TO THE ABOVE CASE, VIZ. ITA NO.1193/HYD.2015 AND ALL THE ASSESSEES BEING CO-SHARERS GOT FIVE FL ATS FOR THE BUILT UP AREA IN LIEU OF THEIR SHARE OF LAND TRANSFERRED UNDER THE D EVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. SINCE FACTS ARE SIMILAR, IN THE LIGHT OF DISCUSSION CONTA INED IN PARAS 8 AND 9 HEREINABOVE, WE AGREE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN THESE CASES ALSO AND DISMISS THESE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AS WELL. 12. TO SUM UP, ALL THE SEVEN APPEALS OF THE REVEN UE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 20 TH NOVEMBER, 2015 SD/- SD/- ( D.MANMOHAN ) ( B.RAMAKOTAIAH ) VICE PRESIDENT . ACCOUTNANT MEMBER DT/- 20 TH NOVEMBER, 2015 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. LATE K.JAIPAL , L/R. OF SMT. K.MANJULA, 3 - 2 - 87 GENERAL BAZAR, SECUNDERABAD SECUNDERABAD ITA NO.1188 TO 1194/HYD/2015 SHRI K.VENU AND OTHERS SECUNDERABAD 10 2. SHRI CHAN D RASEKHAR KONTHAM, 3 - 2 - 87, GENERAL BAZAR, SECUNDERABAD, SECUNDERABAD 3. SHRI K.MURALI, GENERAL BAZAR, 3-2-87 SECUNDERABA D 4. LATE K.SRINIVAS RAO, L/R. SMT.K.GEETA RANI, 3 - 2 - 87 GENERAL BAZAR, SECUNDERABAD 5. SHRI K.NARSING RAO, 3 - 2 - 87 GENERAL BAZAR, SECUNDERABAD 6. SHRI K.VENU, 3 - 2 - 87, GENERAL BAZAR, SECUNDERABAD 7. SHRI K.NARAYANA RAO, 3 - 2 - 87, GENERAL BAZAR, SECUNDERABAD 8. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 10(2), HYDERABAD 9. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) VI, HYDERABAD 10. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VI, HYDERABAD 11. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ITAT, HYDERABAD B.V.S.