Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 374 - AT - Income TaxEntitlement to exemption under section 54F - Capital gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house - assessee found favour with CIT (A) on the basis that the Flat "B" itself was the new asset, so that it could not be said that the assessee had more than one residential house, excluding the new asset, as on the date of the transfer of the original asset, i.e., July 21, 2008. Any investment made during the period July 21, 2007 and July 21, 2010 would thus qualify for exemption under section 54F - Held that:- The restrictions, as of a maximum of two residential houses ; retention of one qua which deduction is availed of for a period of three years (lest the same becomes a trade), etc., stand clearly spelt out in the section itself (section 54F). Once the purchase of a residential house has crystallised, as ostensibly on July 27, 2007 in the present case, any capital gain arising on a long-term capital asset (non-residential) could be appropriated towards its cost as long as the conditions of the section are met. A beneficial provision, as section 54F, has even otherwise to be construed liberally. In the case of allotment of flats through self-financing schemes, as by the Delhi Development Authority, the same is considered as an acquisition by way of construction, entitling the assessee to complete the test of dominion over an increased period of time, i.e., three years, as provided by the statute for the same (construction) after the date of transfer. In the facts of the present case, the assessee paid ₹ 51 lakhs in July, 2007, receiving the letter of allotment. Whether the same would amount to a purchase of the relevant asset would be the next and the relevant question to be asked. Even though the same may not by itself be considered as constituting a "purchase" in terms of test laid down by the hon'ble court in the case cited supra, the subsequent payments would definitely lead to one, so that the payments made in July, 2007 can, in retrospective, only be considered as towards purchase of flat B, the new asset. But for the payments in July, 2007, it may be appreciated, the payment/s during the relevant previous year (Rs. 40 lakhs) would not result in the payment of the entire sum during the current year, even as we observe substantial payment to have been made, meeting the test of substantial control, by December, 2008, whereat therefore the purchase, as explained by the hon'ble court, can be said to have taken place or matured. A reasonable construction of the provision, thus, would only be of the purchase, as indeed construction, being a manner of acquisition, which is to be completed within the time as provided under the provision, i.e., one year before or two years subsequent to the date of transfer of the relevant capital asset. Further, determination of the purchase date of flat B in December, 2008 would, however, result in no adverse impact on the assessee's case either for the assessment year 2007-08 or for the current year. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|