Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 789 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Claim of deduction u/s 54F and 54EC denied - Held that:- Section 2(14) is very widely defined to mean property of any kind held by an tax-payer, whether or not connected with his business or profession. The exceptions are also provided u/s 2(14) wherein property shall not be included in the definition of capital asset. As observed that CBDT own circulars bearing 471 dated 15.10.1986 and 672 dated 16.12.1993 are relevant, wherein allotment of flat under self financing scheme is held to be construction for the purposes of capital gains. Thus AO rightly allowed deduction u/s 54F to the assessee vide assessment order dated 20.10.2015 passed u/s 143(3) by the AO and to that extent the said assessment order cannot be termed as perverse or erroneous so far so it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue calling for interference u/s 263 of the 1961 Act. So, far as deduction u/s 54EC of the 1961 Act is concerned, the assessee made investment of ₹ 50,00,000/- during the year under consideration in NHAI Bonds which is an eligible investment under Section 54EC of the 1961 Act and further investment of ₹ 21,50,000/- was made by the assessee in eligible NHAI Bonds in the immediately succeeding financial year, but within a period of six months from the date of transfer. The deduction u/s 54EC was rightly allowed by the AO for an aggregate amount of ₹ 71,50,000/- as the amendment to Section 54EC was brought by Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01.04.2015 which restricted/capped the deduction u/s 54EC to a maximum sum of ₹ 50,00,000/- for investment made in qualified bonds during the year in which transfer took place as also by including investment in eligible bonds in immediately succeeding year. On the both the issues on which learned Pr. CIT invoked provisions of Section 263, it could not be said that the assessment order dated 20-10-2015 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act was erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue calling interference u/s 263 of the 1961 Act. Thus, not only did the AO made proper inquiry with respect to correctness of claim of computation of capital gain filed by the assessee but also applied law correctly by allowing the said claim(s) of the assessee in the return of income filed with Revenue. The assessee has rightly relied upon decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Moil Limited v. CIT reported in (2017 (5) TMI 258 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT). - Decided in favour of assessee.
|