Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Neela S. Karyakarte Versus ITO-23 (3) (1) , Mumbai

2015 (12) TMI 618 - ITAT MUMBAI

Eligibility for exemption u/s 54EC - whether the investment was made by the assessee within the six months from the transfer of the original asset as prescribed u/s 54EC - Held that:- The assessee had filed an application with National Housing Bank on 23.12.2004 and submitted along with this application Cheque No.669766 drawn on bank of India, Mulund Branch Mumbai, dated 23.12.2004. This fact has not been disputed by the Ld. DR appearing on behalf of the revenue. Thus, assessee has clearly made .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Shri Vijay Kumar Soni (DR) ORDER PER ASHWANI TANEJA, A.M. The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against order dated 18.10.2012, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai for the assessment year 2005-06. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. The Ld. CITCA) erred in holding that the Assessee is not eligible for exemption u/s 54EC without appreciating the fact that the investment was made within 6 months from the date of transfer i.e. 29-06-200 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

3.12.2004 and the cheque has been cleared on 29.12.2004., however, the bond was issued on 31-12-2004 and hence the said date is mentioned in the bond. As the investment clearly falls within the date i.e. 29-12-2004, exemption u/s 54EC may be granted. 4. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any or all the above grounds of appeal. 2. The effective issue raised in this appeal is whether the assessee would be eligible for deduction u/s 54EC or not. The only key point to decide t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

0,176/-. The assessee invested this capital gain in NHB Capital Gain Bonds 2006 on 31st December, 2004 and claimed exemption u/s 54EC. 3. However, the AO found that the assessee was not eligible for exemption u/s 54EC, since the investment in acquiring NHB Capital Gain Bonds was not made by the assessee within six months from the date of transfer of original asset, as per requirement of section 54EC. The AO observed that the sale of row house (i.e. original asset) was executed on 27.04.2004, as .....

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 of full and final settlement, the date of transfer would be 29th of June, 2004. According to the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee made investment in the bonds on 31.12.2004. It was held by Ld. CIT(A) that even if the date of transfer was taken as 29th of June 2004 and date of investment being 31.12.2004, it fell beyond the period of six months and therefore, the assessee was not eligible for deduction u/s 54EC. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed the appeal before the Tribunal. During the course of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ertificate 31.12.2004. 5. It was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the assessee had complied with the requirement of section 54EC by making investment within the stipulated period of six months and therefore, the assessee should be given the benefit of section 54EC. The Ld. Counsel also placed reliance upon the judgment of Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Tribunal in the case of M/s. Crucible Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.5994/Mum/2013 dated 25.02.2015 and upon the latest decision of Special Bench 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

f the cheques. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the order of Ld. CIT(A) and that of the AO and submitted that the benefit has been rightly denied. 6. We have heard both the parties very carefully. With a view to make things simple, let us first take into consideration the undisputed facts on record with respect to various dates. The Ld. CIT(A) has held that the date of transfer of original asset is 29th of June 2004. The Revenue has not filed any appeal and Ld DR has not disputed the order .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(supra) and the observations of the Hon ble coordinate bench are reproduced here under: 5. We have heard both the parties and their contentions have carefully been considered. In the aforementioned decision of Special Bench "6 months" have been interpreted and it is held that the same would mean 6 calendar months and not 180 days. The observations of the Special Bench are as under: 5.6 In certain other context few Hon'ble High Courts have also taken a view that a month is to be rec .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Court was that whether the 4 ITA NO.5994/MUM/2013 (A.Y. 2010-11) Tribunal was right in law and on facts in canceling the penalty levied u/s. 271(l)(a), observing that month meant calendar month and not the lunar month of 28 or 30 days. This issue was dealt at some length by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Kadri Mill (Caimbatore) Ltd. (supra). In this case, the observation of the Hon'ble Court was that IT Act, 1961 itself does not define the word "month" however Sectio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version