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 →

Smt. Neena N. Dharod and Others Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6 (3) , Hyderabad.

2016 (3) TMI 1067 - ITAT HYDERABAD

Entitlement to claim exemption u/s. 54 - reopening of assessment - Held that:- There is no dispute that assessee has made investment in the new property. It is also borne out from facts on record that investment in the second property is within the period of two years from the date of sale or original asset. That being the case, assessee will be eligible for exemption under section 54 of the Act. So far as AD's objections with regard to purchase of the property in the name assessee's wife is con .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Sitaram ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETRA RAVI, J.M. The above appeals are filed by the assessees against the separate orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-4, Hyderabad dated 03.07.2015. The assessee s are family members and co-owners of properties. Since common issues are involved in these appeals, the appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of brevity, the facts involved in ITA.No.1154/H/2015 for the A.Y. 2005-2006 are as under. 2. Brief facts of the case are .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he property on which exemption u/s. 54 was sold within 3 years the cost of the property is to be reduced by the amount of capital gain exemption claimed. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 was issued on 26.03.2010, which was served on 20.04.2010. In response, the assessee's AR vide order sheet noting dated 21.12.2010 requested to treat the return filed on 01.08.2005 may be treated as return filed in response to notice u/s, 148. 2.1. During the assessment proceedings, A.O. found that in the A.Y. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

4-05 stating that the sale proceeds were invested in acquiring new house. During the relevant year, the new house property on which exemption u/s. 54 was claimed was sold for ₹ 1,95,00,000 and the assessee's share of sale receipt is Rs, 32,50,000. A.O. observed that since the assessee has claimed capital gain exemption of ₹ 34,03,603, the same was to be reduced from cost of acquisition as per the provisions of sec. 54 (1) (ii) of the IT Act, 1961 and worked out the short term 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

hout adjudicating the matter on merits stating that the delay in filing of appeal does not deserve to be condoned. The ITAT vide order ITA No. 1591/Hyd/2012 dated 07.11.2013 remitted the issue to CIT(A) to examine the issue afresh and decide the issue in accordance with law. The Ld. CIT(A) issued a notice of hearing dated 29.06.2015 and the assessee made a written submission, stating the fact that the similar issue was decided in favour of the assessee by the Honorable ITAT vide order ITA.No.179 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ble to tax as per the provisions of section 54F(3), whereas, assessee claimed exemption under section 54 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in second appeal before us. 2.3. Since, the facts and circumstances in case of other assessees are also similar, they are not reproduced again for sake of brevity. 3. The Ld. A.R. while reiterating the submissions made before the Ld. CIT(A), contended that assessees disposed of the property and purchased a second .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

at it is a question to be decided by this Tribunal as to whether Section 54F is applicable or not to the facts on hand. 5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material available on record, it is noticed that the undisputed facts of the case are that, the assessees purchased a property at Road No.7, Banjara Hills relevant to A.Y. 2004-05 and due to some reasons that property was sold at the same price. Again, during the same assessment year, the assessees purchased another property alo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

his Tribunal dated 05.09.2014 in ITA.No.179/Hyd/2014 in the case of Nilesh Dharod, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-6(3), Hyderabad wherein the assessee therein is said to be the co-owner of the assessee in purchasing the properties at Road No.7 and 12, Banjarahills. While considering the same set of facts on merits, the Tribunal held that the investment in the second property is within the period of two years from the date of sale of the original asset. Therefore, the assessee therein who is a co-owner .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

religious and sentimental reasons. the said house was sold for ₹ 1,95,00,000 on 30.11.2004, in which assessee's share was ₹ 32,50,000. It was stated that assessee again made investment of his share in sale proceed in a residential house at plot No.1092, Road No. 45, Jubilee Hills on 01.05.2005 purchased for a consideration of ₹ 2,05,07,445 in the name of his wife Smt. Neena Dharod and son Mayur Dharod. Thus, it was submitted that since investment at Road No. 45, Jubilee Hil .....

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