New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (9) TMI 899 - ITAT DELHI

2015 (9) TMI 899 - ITAT DELHI - [2015] 43 ITR (Trib) 427 (ITAT [Del]) - Reopening of assessment - assessee has not complied with the provisions of section 54B of the Act for claiming deduction - whether reasons to believe do not survive? - CIT(A) deleted the disallowance - Held that:- When the assessee is showing income from business and profession in the return of income either negative or positive, then obviously, the assessee falls within the ambit of non-corporate tax payers which includes p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

visions of the Act and we are unable to see any infirmity, perversity or any other valid reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, sole ground of the revenue being devoid of merits is dismissed. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Declining the claim u/ s 54F - Held that:- We are inclined to hold that the issue raised by the assessee is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Dr. P.K. Vasnathi Rangarajan vs CIT (2012 (7 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as well as impugned order pertaining to the claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act and the AO is directed to allow the same to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Addition for 'income from house property' - Held that:- From careful reading of the impugned assessment order and order of the CIT(A), we are unable to see any fact or evidence which can substantiate that the assessee actually earned rental income from the said property during the previous year, even we are unable .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e Appellant : Shri Rakesh Jain, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Chandrakar, Sr. DR ORDER Per Chandramohan Garg, J. M. These cross appeals by the revenue as well as by the assessee have been preferred against the order of CIT(A), Faridabad dated 26.3.13 in Appeal No. 258/11-12 for AY 2006-07. Revenue s appeal - ITA No. 3292/D/13 for AY 2006-07 2. The Revenue has raised sole ground in this appeal which reads as under:- 1. A) Because the action for the assumption and application of jurisdiction, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ted in capital gains account with Punjab National Bank on 28.10.06. To support this claim, the assessee pointed out before the AO that as per order dated 24.7.2006 of Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Revenue (CBDT) issued u/s 119(2) (b) of the Act, the date of filing of return was extended to 31.10.06, therefore, the claim of the assessee is established and allowable. The AO dismissed the claim of the assessee u/s 54B of the Act by holding that it is mandatory that the amount of cap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

8377; 32 lakh to the taxable income of the assessee. 4. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) which was allowed by holding that in view of the order u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act dated 24.7.06 issued by the CBDT and the relevant evidence filed by the assesse in support of depositing of impugned amount in his bank account of 28.10.06, the assessee rightly claimed deduction u/s 54B of the Act and relief was granted to the assessee. The CIT(A) explicitly held that as per order of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed on record inter alia assessment order, impugned order of the first appellate authority and order of CBDT u/s 119(2)(b) dated 24.07.2006 (supra). We have also perused the revised computation of total income available at pages 60 & 63 of the assessee s paper book. Firstly, we find it appropriate to note that admittedly and undisputedly, the fact emerges from the records that the assessee deposited ₹ 32 lakh in Capital Gains Accounts Scheme with PNB on 28.10.06. As per revised computat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

6 in all cases of non-corporate taxpayers including partners of the firms and charitable trusts and institutions. 6. On bare reading of the impugned order of the CIT(A), we note that the CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee with following observations and conclusion:- Along with written submissions, the appellant gave a copy of order No. 142/41/200S-TPL(PT) u/s. 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act dated 24.07.2006 of the CBDT, as per which the due date for furnishing the return of income for assess .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ce filed by the appellant in support of depositing of ₹ 32,00,000 in his bank account on 28.10.2006, I hold that the appellant rightly claimed the exemption u/s 54B of the Income Tax Act amounting to ₹ 32,00,000/-. This ground of appeal is thus allowed. 7. In view of above, when the assessee is showing income from business and profession in the return of income either negative or positive, then obviously, the assessee falls within the ambit of non-corporate tax payers which includes .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ovisions of the Act and we are unable to see any infirmity, perversity or any other valid reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, sole ground of the revenue being devoid of merits is dismissed. Assessee s appeal in ITA No.3474/D/13 for AY 2006-07 8. First of all, ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the assessee does not want to press ground no. 1 and hence, the same is dismissed as not pressed. The remaining grounds of the assessee for adjudication read as under:- 2. Because the a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd No.2 9. Apropos ground no.2, ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the AO and the CIT(A) were not justified in dismissing the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 54F of the Act. Ld. Counsel further contended that conclusion of the authorities below is not sustainable on the fact and in law and on the true and correct provisions of Transfer of Property Act 1882 r/w provisions of the Registration Act 1908 qua the ownership, control and possession of the property through a General Power .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ansfer, the assessee did not own residential house in her/his name only and was the holder of only 50% of share, then the provisions of section 54F of the Act do not create a rider and the assessee should be held entitled to exemption u/s 54F of the Act. 10. Replying to the above, ld. DR supported the action of the authorities below and submitted that on combined reading of the facts of the case, together with the provisions of section 54 of the Act shows that the appellant assessee should not o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y purchasing a third property no. 614, sector 21-C, Faridabad which is clearly hit by the proviso (a) (i) to section 54F(1) of the Act. Ld. DR submitted that the AO rightly denied exemption u/s 54 of the Act to the assessee which was rightly upheld and confirmed by the CIT(A), Faridabad. Thus, these grounds of the assessee being devoid of merits may kindly be dismissed. Ld. DR submitted that the benefit of the ratio of decision of Hon ble Madras High Court is not available for the assessee in th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Ld. Counsel of the assessee also took us through the Will of Shri Harish Chander Batra dated 7.5.1993 and submitted that the Testator by way of Will parted with his leasehold rights in the said property in favour of the assessee and Smt. Saroj Rani Aggarwal excluding the rights of his other legal heirs and successors and share of the assessee was only 50% , therefore, in view of decision of Hon ble Madras High Court, joint ownership of the said property with Smt. Saroj Rani Aggarwal would not s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the assessee u/s 54(F)(1) of the Act is not maintainable and where the assessee owns more than one residential house other than the new asset on the date of transfer of original asset which was old and the revenue wants to tax capital gain on such transfer of asset. In the present case, admittedly and undisputedly, the assessee was owning property no. 2109, Sector 28, Faridabad and claimed exemption u/s 54F of the Act by purchasing property no. 614, Sector 21C, Faridabad. The AO noted that the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Dr. P.K. Vasnathi Rangarajan vs CIT (supra) supports the case of the assessee wherein their lordships held that the joint ownership of the property would not stand in the way of claiming exemption u/s 54 of the Act. In a peculiar situation where the assessee did not own residential house exclusively in his name and was the holder of 50% share and hence, the assessee was held to be entitled to exemption u/s 54F of the Act. On a specific query from the benc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

situated at Siddarth Extension Residential Scheme and the AO was not justified in denying claim of the assessee u/s 54 of the Act and the first appellate authority was incorrect in upholding the action of the AO on this issue. Finally in view of our foregoing discussion, we dismiss the action of the AO as well as impugned order pertaining to the claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act and the AO is directed to allow the same to the assessee. Accordingly, ground no. 2 of the assessee is allowed. G .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

elevant financial period, therefore, no addition in this regard could be made. 14. Replying to the above, ld. DR supported the action of the AO and the conclusion of the CIT(A) and submitted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee has simply submitted that all the relevant details of his income were submitted and the assessee nowhere denied having income of ₹ 25,200 from the property situated at Siddarth Extension Residential Scheme, therefore, income in this regard was rightl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

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

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

Go to Mobile Version