Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (5) TMI 349 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of deduction claimed u/s 54B - Reinvestment in agricultural lands in the names of sons/wife - HELD THAT:- Reinvestment was made by the assessee in the residential house in the name of his wife. The purposive construction of the provisions preferred as against the literal construction of the same. - Following the decision of High Courts with respect to Section 54F, the benefit extended to the assessee. Reinvestment in the names of sons - Revenue submitted that the investment in the hands of the wife and daughters cannot be compared with that of the investment in the hands of the sons. In the present case, the assessee’s investment made in the names of Shri Rahul Sakaram Bhondve (son), Shri Tarachand Sakaram Bhondve (son). The above cited decisions are relevant for the case of spouse only not to the son’s cases. Considering the same, discussion given by the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer in their respective orders is fair and reasonable and it does not call for any interference. Reinvestment by way of Advances by assessee and the sons - HELD THAT:- There is paucity of facts with regard to the ownership of ₹ 18,00,000/- paid to D.N. Chaudhary deceased. Notwithstanding the incompleteness of the transaction, the requirement for claim of deduction in the investment of capital gains, the assessee is entitled for deduction to that extent the contribution belongs to the assessee out of the said ₹ 18,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer is directed to examine the same and the claim of the assessee indicated above. Thus, this part of grounds is allowed for statistical purposes. Allowability of expenses out - HELD THAT:- There is no legal impediment in transferring the property by the appellant without concurrence of the sisters of his father. The payment, if made by the appellant therefore appears to be gratis, and is not related to the transfer of the land in Sept 2006 and therefore such expenditure is not wholly or exclusively related to the transfer of the capital asset and therefore not deductible u/s 48. Recipients of cash are not the owners of the property at the time of property transferred. The above payments made are not required to be incurred wholly and exclusively for the transfer of property by the assessee. Above finding of the CIT(A) is fair and reasonable on this issue and it does not call for any interference. Accordingly, this part of grounds is dismissed.
|