2016 (4) TMI 522 - ITAT CHENNAI
Smt. Hemalatha Chandran, C/o Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate Versus The Income Tax Officer,
Computation of capital gain - exemption claimed by the assessee under Section 54F - capital gain was invested in multiple residential units - Held that - Section 54F of the Act clearly says that the capital gain arising from the transfer of any long term capital, the asset not being residential house, is eligible for exemption, if the assessee, within a period of one year before or two years after the date of transfer, purchased or has within a period of three years after the date of transfer, constructed a residential house in India. The term constructed a residential house was amended by Fin ....... - .......
2016 (4) TMI 1088 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
B. Pullam Raju (HUF) , Kakinada Versus Addl. CIT, Range-4, Visakhapatnam
Claim of exemption u/s 54F - denial of claim as on the date of sale, the assessee owned more than one residential house and as per section 54F(1)(ii&iii) of the Act the assessee is not eligible for exemption - Held that - On perusal of the confirmation letter issued by the builder, we find that the confirmation letter dated 20.2.2011 issued by the builder states that the assessee has paid advance towards purchase of two residential flats. The subsequent confirmation letter dated 11.11.2011 issued by the builder clearly states that he had carried out additional works of ₹ 12,66,515/- for ....... - .......
2016 (4) TMI 126 - ITAT CHENNAI
Smt. Geetha Jayamurugan Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2 (1) , Chennai
Assessment under section 153A - Held that - The assessments of 2007-08 to 2011-12, which are not based on any incriminating and therefore the assessment framed under section 153A of the Act cannot be stand on its own leg, which are not framed on the basis of any incriminating material found during the course of search operation and they do not conform the mandate of section 153A of the Act. Accordingly, the assessments framed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2011-12 five assessment years are quashed. - Assessment year 2012-13 and 2013-14, there is a time lim ....... - .......
2016 (4) TMI 502 - ITAT MUMBAI
Astt. Commissioner of Income-tax – 131) , Mumbai Versus Shri Mohamed Hussain Umer Merchant,
Taxability of the amount received from the partnership firm - assessee declared the same as capital gains in its return of income and proposed to avail exemption u/s 54F - Held that - CIT(A) has rightly referred to the provisions of sec. 45(4) of the Act, which provides for manner of taxation in case of dissolution of a partnership firm or other association of persons. We have earlier noticed that the assessing officer has proceeded the to assess the amount of ₹ 2.50 crores as revenue receipt only by rejecting the claim of existence of partnership firm. However, the finding of the Ld CIT ....... - .......
2016 (4) TMI 867 - ITAT HYDERABAD
M. Srinivasa Rao Versus Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3 (2) , Hyderabad and The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3 (2) , Hyderabad Versus Sri M. Srinivasa Rao
Deduction u/s. 54F - Held that - In the present case, assessee has purchased a semi-finished house and completed construction before the three years period as prescribed. Revenue has not cited or placed on record any contrary judgment. Therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. K. Ramachandra Rao 2015 (4) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , we direct the AO to allow the capital gains exemption as claimed. - Claim of cost of acquisition - Held that - AO as stated earlier has not considered the cost of acquisition or indexation a ....... - .......
2016 (3) TMI 1061 - ITAT DELHI
Jai Prakash S/o. Sh. Girdhari Lal Versus ITO Ward-1 (3) , Meerut
Adoption of fair market value as at 1-4-1981 of the property sold by the assessee - Held that - The rates adopted by the AO by obtaining the same from the office of District magistrate for 1984 cannot be applied for determining fair market value of property as at 1-4-1981. Therefore we are also not approving the rates adopted by the AO as well as by assessee. Therefore according to the law it is for the assessee to substantiate fair market value of the property by submitting the valuation report obtained from authorized valuer. If the assessee does not exercise this option than AO does not hav ....... - .......
2016 (3) TMI 1015 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
B. Venkata Ramana Srinivas Versus ITO, Ward-2, Rajahmundry
Exemption u/s 54F - whether two flats owned by the assessee are commercial and assessee is eligible for exemption under sec. 54F for acquiring 3 flats in lieu of development agreement - Held that - In the present case on hand, the records show that the assessee along with family members purchased incomplete residential apartment consisting of 8 flats. The assessee has taken housing loan from bank. The plan sanction was also for the purpose of residential purpose. The revenue records show that properties are residential in nature. Just because, the flats are let out for commercial purposes for ....... - .......
2016 (3) TMI 823 - ITAT JAIPUR
Shri Virendra Singh and Shri Surendra Singh Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (1) , Alwar
Deduction u/s 54B and 54F - Entitlement to claim whether the return has actually been filed under section 139(1) or under section 139(4)? - Held that - A combined reading of section 54B(2) read with the proviso clearly provides that the amount of the capital gain which is not utilized by the assessee for the purchase of the new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) should be deposited with a bank/institution in a specified scheme irrespective of whether the return has actually been filed under section 139(1) or under section 139(4) of the Act. - The legi ....... - .......
2016 (4) TMI 35 - ITAT JAIPUR
Shri Duli Chand Mali, Gullar Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward 7 (2) , Jaipur
Fair Market Value of land for the purpose of Computation of Capital Gain - Indexed cost of acquisition - whether FMV of land for the purpose of Computation of Capital Gain, should have been taken on the date of Notification in official Gazette by which agriculture land became the Capital assets within meaning of section 2(14)(iii)? - Held that - What is relevant is the actual cost of acquisition of the asset in the hands of the assessee and not the FMV on the date on which the asset became a capital asset for the purpose of levy of capital gains tax. The only exception is where the asset was p ....... - .......
2016 (4) TMI 70 - ITAT JAIPUR
Shri Ram Gopal Bansal (HUF) Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward 7 (3) , Jaipur
Disallowance of claim of deduction u/s 54F - transactions done by Shri Ram Gopal Bansal as a Karta of the HUF OR in his individual capacity - Held that - The assessee has been consistent in its approach in terms of treatment and disclosure of the purchase and sale and subsequent purchase of the properties. It so happened that in the agreements, the name of Shri Ram Gopal Bansal has been mentioned wherein all the relevant facts taken together leads to the conclusion that all these transactions have been effectively done by Shri Ram Gopal Bansal as a Karta of the HUF and not in his individual ca ....... - .......
2016 (4) TMI 216 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai Versus Mr. I. Ifthiqar Ashiq
Deduction u/s. 54F - Tribunal was right in allowing assessee claim for deduction u/s. 54F especially when assessee owned two properties on the date of transfer of original assets and income from two properties were chargeable to tax under the head income from house property - Held that - It is not a case of the Department that the case of the assessee would fall under any one of the three sub-clauses of clause (a) together with clause (b). The case of the Department is that the assessee had income from a commercial property that was treated as income from house property. To be precise, the ass ....... - .......
2016 (2) TMI 881 - ITAT JAIPUR
Shri Hardayal Singh Versus The DCIT, Circle, Jaipur
Liability to pay tax on long term capital gains - cancellation document - Transfer - Held that - If there was any cancellation document which has taken place, the original document would have been with the assessee, as the assessee would have been the sole beneficiary of said document . In our view, the alleged cancellation agreement between the assessee and the purchaser, if accepted, is a title document qua the assessee that will nullify the effect of the original sale deed as per the assessee (though this contention of nullifying the effect of registered document is highly disputable and de ....... - .......
2016 (3) TMI 42 - ITAT PUNE
Vishwasrao Mahipatrao Patil Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 6 (4) , Pune
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - assessee has not disclosed the Capital Gain from sale of property - assessee not claimed relief u/s. 54/54F - Held that - The facts of the present case suggest that it is a peculiar case where the assessee was not aware about the taxation provisions. The assessee had not disclosed the Capital Gains arising from sale of property in his return of income and at the same time had not claimed relief u/s. 54/54F of the Act for which he was eligible. The assessee accepted the addition made in assessment proceedings without any protest. In such circumstances the addit ....... - .......
2016 (3) TMI 43 - ITAT CHENNAI
Shri K Govindaraj Versus The Income Tax Officer Business Ward X (4) , Chennai
Reopening of assessment - eligibility of deduction u/s 54F - Held that - As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd (1992 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court ), the re-assessment proceedings is for bringing to tax item which are escaped assessment, it would be open to an assessee to put forward claims for deduction of any expenditure in respect of that income or the non-taxability of the items at all. Keeping in view of the object and purpose of the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act which is for the benefit of the Revenue not an assessee, an assessee cannot be permitted to con ....... - .......
2016 (3) TMI 88 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
Vegesina Kamala, Palakol Versus ITO, Ward-1, Palakol
Revision u/s 263 - whether exemption u/s 54F of the Act can be denied for the assessment year 2009-10, for failure to construct the property within the period of 3 years from the date of sale of original asset? - Held that - On careful consideration of the provisions of section 54F of the Act, it is abundantly clear that sub section 4 of section 54F of the Act, provides for, where the assessee has not utilized the full value of consideration for purchase/construction of residential house property within the due date specified u/s 139(1) of the Act, then the assessee shall invest the unutilized ....... - .......