Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2012 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (8) TMI 264 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 54F - Long term capital gains on sale of shares - assessee invested sale proceeds in purchase of row houses located at the ground floor and at the 1st & 2nd floor in joint name along with his wife - denial of deduction on ground that exemption u/s 54F is available in respect of one residential house and that to in the name of the individual - Held that:- It is found that AO rejected the claim without making any physical verification. Therefore, matter is restored back to the files of the A.O to verify whether the dwelling unit bears a single municipal number. The A.O. is further directed to verify whether the dwelling units have only one access and common entrance. If the answers to both the aforesaid questions are in affirmative, then the ground floor and the first and second floor cannot be regarded as a separate residential house and to be treated as a single dwelling unit entitled for exemption u/s 54F. Since, name of the wife has been added only for the sake of convenience and total consideration has been met from the account of the assessee. Moreover, provisions of section 45 of the Transfer of the Property Act which provides that the share in the property will depend on the amount contributed towards the purchase consideration and as in the present case, the total contribution has come from the assessee, the exemption cannot be denied. Short-term capital loss on redemption of units - date of realization of cheque issued for purchase of units taken for determination of period of holding whereas assessee contending for date of tendering of cheque to be taken - revenue contended period of holding to be less than 3 months and thus hit by provisions of Section 94(7) - Held that:- Date of tendering the cheque should be taken as the date of the purchase of units. Once this date is taken for consideration, then the provisions of section 94(7) would ultimately not apply on the facts of the transaction - Decided in favor of assessee.
|