TMI Blog1993 (10) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the benefit contemplated by section 54(1) as allowed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not available to the assessee-Hindu undivided family ?" The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Hindu undivided family and has shown capital gains on the sale of the property known as 'Vinay Champa'. It was contended by the assessee that the construction of another building was made within a period of two years of the sale of the building and, therefore, the benefit of the provisions of section 54 has to be given to it. The Income-tax Officer declined to give the benefit of section 54(1) to the assessee. On appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the contention of the assessee was accepted and it was held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period of one year before or after that date purchased, or has within a period of two years after that date constructed, a house property for the purposes of his own residence, then, instead of the capital gain being charged to income-tax as income of the previous year in which the transfer took place, it shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section, that is to say. . . ." The exemption has been granted if the construction is made within a period of two years but the point which has to be seen is to whom the exemption is available. The words "assessee" or a "parent of his" cannot be interpreted to include a Hindu undivided family as neither does a Hindu undivided family have a parent nor could the word ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1993] 202 ITR 678, is also in respect of a different provision of law of wealth-tax where the word "individual" was considered to include a "group of individuals". The different High Courts have interpreted the provisions of section 54 in CIT v. G. K. Devarajulu [1991] 191 ITR 211 (Mad), Anam Venkata Krishna Reddy v. CIT [1988] 172 ITR 425 (AP), Shrigopal Rameshwardas v. Addl. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 980 (MP), Rowji Sojpal v. CIT [1957] 31 ITR 721 (Bom), CIT v. C. Chandrashekar [1984] 145 ITR 429 (Kar), K. I. Viswambharan and Bros. v. CIT [1973] 91 ITR 588 (Ker) [FB], Smt. Rampyaribai Narayandas v. CIT [1984] 147 ITR 223 (MP) and Kanhiyalal and Ramswaroop v. CIT [1984] 149 ITR 157 (MP), and it has been held that the benefit of exemption under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
