Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued soon
Home
2023 (1) TMI 563 - AT - Income TaxDenial of deduction u/s. 54F - assessee did not invest a new property within stipulated time and denied exemption u/s. 54F - HELD THAT - Admittedly the assessee s share at 21% of profit from housing project i.e. Shriram Residency which is evident from para 4 of the assessment order. Therefore there is no dispute with regard to capital gain arising from housing project i.e. Shriram Residency. Therefore the assessee is entitled to proportionate deduction to the extent investment made in a new property up to the filing of return of income. AO disallowed entire claim made u/s. 54F of the Act to the extent of Rs.25, 00, 000/- which was confirmed by the CIT(A). Therefore in terms of the decision in the case of Humayun Suleman Merchant 2016 (9) TMI 70 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT that the assessee is entitled to claim proportionate deduction as evident from receipts which are payments made towards new property and also the said payments were made before filing of return of income. Admittedly the return of income was filed on 31-07-2014 which is evident from para 1 of the impugned order. Thus the assessee is entitled to get deduction of Rs.11, 00, 000/- u/s. 54F of the Act as against the entire disallowance of Rs.25, 00, 000/-. Thus ground Nos. 3 and 4 raised by the assessee are allowed. Denying exemption u/s. 54B - enhancement made by the CIT(A) - disallowance made on account of having purchased agricultural land in individual - THAT - Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Ravinder Kumar Arora 2011 (9) TMI 343 - DELHI HIGH COURT held that the provisions of section 54 of the Act are the beneficial provision which should be interpreted liberally in favour of the deduction to the taxpayer and deduction should not be denied on hyper technical ground. There is no dispute with regard to reinvestment on agricultural land by the assessee in his individual capacity the provisions u/s. 54 of the Act being the beneficial provision which should be interpreted liberally in favour of the assessee seeking deduction u/s. 54B - Therefore following the order of Babubhai Arjanbhai Kanani (HUF) 2021 (7) TMI 976 - ITAT SURAT hold that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s. 54B of the Act and enhancement made by the CIT(A) is not justified. Thus the order of AO is restored in allowing deduction u/s. 54B of the Act - Thus ground No. 5 raised by the assessee is allowed.
|