TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 893X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mean 6 calendar months and not 180 days. Thus we find no infirmity in the relief granted by Ld. CIT(A). - Decided against revenue - ITA NO.5994/MUM/2013 - - - Dated:- 25-2-2015 - SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI NEIL PHILIP. FOR THE RESPONDENT: DR. K. SHIVRAM SHRI RAHUL HAKANI ORDER PER I.P.BANSAL, J.M: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue and it is directed against order passed by Ld. CIT(A)-16, Mumbai dated 31/07/2013 for assessment year 2010-11. The grounds of appeal read as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing exemption u/s 54EC of IT Act on investment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hway Authority of India Ltd, New Delhi. The gain arises to the assessee was on 5/3/2010. Therefore, AO observed that the investment made by the assessee was after lapse of a period of six months from the date of transfer of the original asset and, thus, deduction under section 54EC was denied to the assessee. The disallowance was agitated in an appeal filed before Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that the period of six months should have been counted from the end of the month and if the same is counted from the end of the month, then investment made by the assessee was within a period of six months and assessee is entitled to get the impugned exemption. For supporting such contention reliance was also placed on various judicial pronouncements w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 274 ITR 485/[2007] 158 Taxman 30 (Guj.), the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court has opined that the issue of interpretation of the term month is no longer res integra because in the case of CIT v. Kadri Mills (Coimbatore Ltd.), 106 ITR 846 (Mad. ) it was laid down that the month to be reckoned according to British calendar. The issue before the Hon ble Court was that whether the 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 itsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
