Bookmarks   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login  
Tax Management India .com   
   TMI - Tax Management India. Com   
Amendment in Notification No.78/2014-Customs (N.T.) dated the 16th September, 2014    *    Regarding appointment of CAA by M/s Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd, Chennai    *    Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas (Amendment) Regulations, 2016    *    RBI Reference Rate for US $    *    CENVAT credit - capital goods or inputs? - Supply of tangible goods service – dumpers and tippers – such vehicles will be in the nature of inputs for the purposes of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. - Tri    *    CENVAT credit – CHA services are utilized by the appellant before the goods were loaded on to the ship and therefore the same falls within the definition of input services- Tri    *    Cenvat credit - The adjudicating authority was not empowered by law to decide optimum quantity of input admissible to be procured for manufacture of unit quantity of final product and therefore, law did not empower the adjudicating authority to decide how much is the excess quantity of inputs procured by the appellant - Tri    *    Cenvat credit - manpower supply services - 75% of the service tax, which is sought to be denied is admittedly paid to the Government by the provider of service instead of recipient of service - In any case, the service tax has been discharged and denial of the credit on this ground is not sustainable. - Tri    *    Imposition of penalty - non filling of ER-5 and ER-6 returns within the period prescribed - contravention is only a procedural violation and subsequently the required return has been filed - No penalty - Tri    *    Imposition of penalty - non-filing of Annual Return containing details of inputs for the period 2004-05 - other than the non-filing of return, no other allegation has been made against the appellant. The returns stand filed thereafter. - No penalty - Tri    *    Eligibility - credit on capital goods and area based exemption notification no. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 - there is no valid legal ground in the present appeal for denying the credit on capital goods, - Tri    *    Unjust enrichment - Refund claim - The contract is for a fixed amount and it has been categorically recorded in the impugned order that no excise duty incidence has been passed on by the respondent to NHAI. NHAI also categorically certified to that effect - refund allowed - Tri    *    Valuation - where on account of delay in delivery of manufactured goods is liable to pay a lesser amount that the generically agreed price as a result of a clause (in the agreement), stipulating variation in the price, on account the liablility to “liquidated damages”, irrespective of whether the clause is titled “penalty” or “liquidated damages”, the resultant price would be the “transaction value” - Tri    *    Cenvat credit on water treatment plant    *    India US Strategic and Commercial Dialogue    *    Comments/suggestions invited for draft Notification for amendment of Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 and draft Form Courier Shipping Bill-V    *    TDS u/s 195 - P.E. in India - The payments made by assessee to Gensler-USA were merely for project specific drawings & designs without transfer of technology or know-how or even title in drawing & designs - not in the nature of “Royalty” or “Fee for Technical Services”. - Tri    *    Addition relating to trade creditors - additions u/s 68 - in view of the categorical finding that the loan amounts were not reflected in the returns of the 37 persons in question, we do not see how the High Court could have taken the above view and remanded the matter to the AO - SC    *    The fact remains that the property was settled by way of family arrangement for convenient enjoyment and the property remains with assessee’s son and daughter. Therefore, the exemption u/s 54F/54 cannot be denied - Tri    *    Reopening of assessment - the information was available only in the valuation report. Giving the information in this manner shall be of no help to the appellant as the Assessing Officer was not expected to go through the said information available in the valuation report for the purpose of ascertaining the actual construction of the plot - SC
Discussions Forum
Home Forum Income Tax
← Previous Next →

Disallowance of exemption u/s. 54 F - Income Tax

#1 Issue Id: - 1681
Dated: 4-1-2010
By:- Arirama Nadar Ramakrishnan
Disallowance of exemption u/s. 54 F

  • Forum

One of my assessee has sold his property on 21.03.2007 and we arrived long-term capital gain amount Rs. 92,67,000/-. But the assessee has filed his return of income on 29.07.2008 and not made any deposit into Capital Gain Account. Also he has purchased new assets of one residential property on 24.08.2007 for Rs. 39,00,000/-, for that, he has executed sale agreement on 20.04.2007 without made any advance amount. In this circumstance, we have claimed exemption u/s. 54 F for Rs. 39,00,000/- as the assessee invested the amount within six month from the date of Transfer. But, the Income Tax Officer has disallowed this and demanded the tax. Now we want justification with case law reference.

Post Reply

Posts / Replies


#2 Dated: 8-1-2010
Provide full facts about eligibility for 54 F benefit, Why the AO has disallowed?
#3 Dated: 8-1-2010
By:- Arirama Nadar Ramakrishnan
Dear Mr. Dev Kumar Kothari, Thanks for receiving your reply. Please note the eligibility for 54 F benefit - i.e. the earner of long-term capital gain can get the exemption under this section to the extend of long-term capital gain amount; for that, either he has made purchased/constructed new residencial property within one year before or he should purchase/construct new residencial property within three years the date on which the transfer of the original asset took place for the value which higer than the capial gain amount earned within three. For getting this exemption, either he has to made the new asset befor the furnish his return of income u/s. 139 (1) or deposit the capital gain amount into Capital Gain Account with any nationalized bank within the period of six months time. In our case, he has not any deposited into capital gain account and furnished his return of income on 29.07.2008 (Due date was 31.07.2007 u/s. 139(1)). But he has made new assets within six months. The AO has disallowed with the reason mentioned that he has not made deposit into capital gain account and furnshined the return of income was not u/s. 139(1). Hence the claim of exemption u/s. 54 F was disallowed and added back to return of income.
#4 Dated: 8-1-2010
It is not necessary that a capital gain deposit a/c should be opened if a new house is constructted or purchased and for that purpose funds are invested before due date to file return (31.07.07 in this case ). (See. Section 54F (4). In this case assessee has purchased new assets of one residential property on 24.08.2007 for Rs. 39,00,000/-. 24.08.07 is after the due date (31.07.07). Therefore, apparently there was requirement to open capital gain a/c by 31.07.07 and the AO may be considered to be justified in disallowing the claim. However, in case funds have been used ( including committed by issue of cheques to vendor) for purchase of new house before 31.07.07, then case can be made out that to the extent of Rs.39 lakh, it was not necessary to deposit money in capital gain a/c as the money was already paid/ committed to vendor. So check the details of contract to purchase new house, paymeents made before 31.07.07, if not paid at least committment made before 31.07.07 to the vendor, so that it can be said that the sum of Rs.39 lakh is actually used by way of payment or kept ready for purchase of house. If assessee is otherwise eligible for deduction u/s 54F, on the basis of investment made, in new house, late filing of return will not affect his entitlement of deduction u/s 54F. In fact entitlement to claim deduction u/s 54F is not affected even if return is not filed, in case assessee is not otherwise required to file a return a claim as per provisions can be considered in own computation and need not to file return. ( I hope I have not missed any provision requiring filing of return to clam S. 54F benefit). S. 54F is a part of computation of capital gain, so if gross total income is not exceeding basic exemption , then it may not be necesary to file return. You can file appeal, on proper representation of facts and on purposive construction the CIT(A) may allow relief.

Post Reply


← Previous Next →
what is new what is new

Advanced Search

Latest Updates




More Options


|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map || ||

© [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version