G. Prameela Devi, Hyd, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 482/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6319 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 05-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A SITHARAMA RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: P VINOD
• Keywords: Depreciation; Question of law
• Section: 260A

Judgement Text

ITA NOS 481 AND 482 G PRAMEELA DEVI HYDERABAD PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD A (SMC) BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT ITA NOS.481 & 482/HYD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-08 & 2010-11) SMT. G. PRAMEELA DEVI HYDERABAD PAN: AHXPG 7434 J VS. DY. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(1) HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI P. VINOD FOR REVENUE : SHRI A. SITHARAMA RAO, DR DATE OF HEARING : 20.07.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20 .07.2016 O R D E R THESE TWO APPEALS, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, ARE DIREC TED AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CIT (A)-6, HYDERAB AD AND THEY PERTAIN TO THE A.YS 2007-08 AND 2010-11. AT THE TIM E OF HEARING THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ADVERTED OUR A TTENTION TO THE APPLICATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM NO.8 U /S 158A (1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND ALSO REFERRED TO TH E FOLLOWING QUESTIONS RAISED BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT (REV ISED QUESTIONS ON SUBSTANTIAL LAW) TO SUBMIT THAT THE ISSUE STANDS CLEARLY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AND NOT THE ASSESS EE. ITTA NO.434 OF 2010 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. REVISED SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW SOUGHT FOR AD MISSION 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN CURCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNA L IS PERVERSE IN HOLDING THAT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTIO N TO THE BUILDER WILL BE THE SALE CONSIDERATION FOR COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND RENT FOR AMENITIES IS INCOME FROM PROPERTY?. ITA NOS 481 AND 482 G PRAMEELA DEVI HYDERABAD PAGE 2 OF 3 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ORDER OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN DIRECTING TO ADOPT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION TO THE BUILDER AS SALE CONSIDERATION FOR COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS, IS CORRECT IN LAW, WHEN AT BEST IT COULD BE VALUE FOR SUPERSTRUCTURE AS PER SRO DURING THE PERIOD WHEN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO?. 3. WHETHER THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IS RIGHT IN LAW IN ENTERTAINING THE GROUND OF THE REVENUE, CONTRARY TO PROVISIONS OF CONSTITUTION PROVIDING FO R EQUALITY BEFORE LAW, TO CHALLENGE AN ISSUE WHICH IS NOT CHALLENGED IN THE CASE OF CO-OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE APPEAL IN THE OTHER ASSESSEES CASE WAS BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND WAS HEARD AND DECIDED TOGETHER?. 4. WHETHER THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IS CORRECT IN LAW IN ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE OF ASSESSI NG THE INCOME FROM AMENITIES, FURNITURE AND FIXTURES WHEN THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL WAS WITH RESPECT TO THE DIRECTION BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION ON AMENITIES, FURNITURE AND FIXTURES O N THE GROUND OF NON FURNISHING OF DETAILS FOR THE SAME?. 5. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBULA IS CORRE CT IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE BIFURCATION AS RENT FOR THE BUILDING AND RENT FOR AMENITIES IS ARTIFICIAL, WITH OUT ANY MATERIAL BEING BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL?. FOR THE A.YS 2005-06 AND 2006-07, ITAT REJECTED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST WHICH AN APPEAL WAS FILED U/S 260A OF THE I.T. ACT WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT; IF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL AGREES WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT ON THE QUESTION OF LAW, FOR THE YEARS UNDER C ONSIDERATION, ITA NOS 481 AND 482 G PRAMEELA DEVI HYDERABAD PAGE 3 OF 3 ASSESSEE SHALL NOT RAISE THE QUESTIONS OF LAW IN TH E INSTANT APPEALS. 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEALS H EREIN DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISI ON OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITI ON THAT AS AND WHEN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT DECIDES THE QUESTIONS O F LAW IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME MAY BE FOLLOWED IN THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE LEARNED DR HAS NO OBJECTIO N IN THIS REGARD. 3. HAVING REGARD TO THE SUBMISSIONS, WE DISMISS THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF THE DECLARATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 158A(1) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH JULY, 2016. S D/ - ( D. MANMOHAN ) VICE PRESIDENT HYDERABAD, DATED 20 TH JULY, 2016. VNODAN/SPS COPY TO: 1. K.VASANT KUMAR, AV RAGHU RAM, P.VINOD, ADVOCATES, 6 10 BABUKHAN ESTATE, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD 500001 2. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(1) IT TOWE RS, HYDERABAD 3. CIT(A) - 6 HYDERABAD 4. PRINCIPAL CIT 6 HYDERABAD 5. THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER