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 →

Shri K Govindaraj Versus The Income Tax Officer Business Ward X (4) , Chennai

2016 (3) TMI 43 - ITAT CHENNAI

Reopening of assessment - eligibility of deduction u/s 54F - Held that:- As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd (1992 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court ), the re-assessment proceedings is for bringing to tax item which are escaped assessment, it would be open to an assessee to put forward claims for deduction of any expenditure in respect of that income or the non-taxability of the items at all. Keeping in view of the object and purpose of the proceedings u/s 147 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

as escaped assessment. Even in cases, where the claims of the assessee during the course of re-assessment proceedings relating to the escaped assessment are accepted, still the allowance has to be limited to the extent to which they reduce the income to that originally assessed. The income for the purpose of re-assessment cannot be reduced from the income originally assessed. Being so, in our opinion, the claim of the assessee with regard to the cost of improvement and deduction u/s 54F are rela .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

DRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri T Banusekar, CA For The Respondent : Shri P Radhakrishnan, JCIT ORDER PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-5, Chennai, dated 19.3.2015 for assessment year 2007-08. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. For that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case to 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

enying appellant's claim of the indexed cost of acquisition of ₹ 20,40,794/- and deduction u/s.54F of RS.35,00,000/-. 5. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the appellant had rightfully claimed the additional indexed cost of improvement and additional investments in property while calculating capital gains. 6. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in stating that the additional claim as an afterthought. 3. At the time of hearing .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sment was completed u/s 143(3) read with sec.147 of the Act on 19.12.2011 determining the total income at 26,81,437/- which includes Long Term Capital Gain of .26,82,399/-. Consequent to the completion of assessment proceedings/ penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated and a sum of 6,01,714/- was levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on 22.06.2012. 4.1 Subsequently notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.10.2012. In response, the assessee filed a revised return on 14.03.2013 decl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the total consideration received by the assessee was ₹ 97,51,112/- as compensation for compulsory acquisition of his property by the National Highways Authority of India. In the revised return filed/ the assessee worked out the Long Term Capital Gain at ₹ 42,10,318/- after deducting indexed cost of acquisition of ₹ 20,40,794/- and claiming deduction of 35,00,000/- u/s 54F of the Act as against the original claim of .12,34,770/- and 18 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

k was carried out from March 2006 to October 2007 for construction of 6000 sq.ft. of building. 4.3 Not convinced with the reply of the assessee, the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the fresh claim of deduction is not allowable as the proceedings u/s 148 of the Act cannot be used to make fresh claim of expenditure/deduction. The Assessing Officer is also of the view that the new claims are only an afterthought with an intent to reduce Long Term Capital Gain. But the AR contended that 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

hettinad Cement Corporation Pvt. Limited 147 ITR 57 (Mad) & 200 ITR 320(SC). The Assessing Officer rejected the arguments of the assessee and disallowed the claim of cost of improvements and additional investment in the new property. Thus the Assessing Officer worked out the Long Term Capital Gain at 67,59,827/- against the admitted LTCG of 42,10,318/-. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer against which the assessee is in appeal. 5. The ld. AR submitted that in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

T vs Sun Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd, 198 ITR 297, Chettinad Cement Corporation Pvt. Ltd 200 ITR 320 also support the claim of the assessee. 6. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative strongly opposed the claim of the assessee by stating that the provisions of sec. 148 is for the benefit of the Department. Whenever the assessment is reopened, the intention is to bring the escaped income for taxation and not to give any relief to the assessee. He relied on the orders of the lower au .....

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