Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Neena Naresh M Singhi Versus ACIT 24 (3) , Mumbai

Deduction u/s 54EC denied - Held that:- It is noted that there is a confusion with regard to the dates, which have neither been properly explained by the assessee before lower authorities nor it has been addressed properly by the lower authorities. Even before us, Ld. Counsel was not able to explain as to how there could be two agreements. How could there be ‘one’ agreement of two dates. There should be only ‘one’ agreement. Even if separate agreement is made for the buyers, the date is supposed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

period of six months. In view of all these facts, ascertaining correct date of transfer becomes crucial. In view of these circumstances, we send this issue back to the file of the AO who shall give adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee to submit requisite details and documents as may be considered appropriate by the assessee which shall be objectively taken into account by the AO to decide this issue afresh. - Further whether the assessee can be allowed the investment in respect 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

scribed period of two years - Held that:- Assessee had duly made investment in the Flat which was under construction. The facts in this regard are not under dispute. The completion of construction was not in control of the assessee. Since the construction of flat could not be completed, therefore, corresponding income as stipulated in section 54F was offered in the return for A.Y. 2013-14. Our attention was drawn in this regard and copy of computation sheet filed along with return for A.Y. 2013- .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

iling of return for the impugned year in which deduction u/s 54F was claimed in accordance with law. Thus addition has been wrongly made by the lower authorities - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA NO.6182/Mum/2014 - Dated:- 15-6-2016 - Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member For The Assessee : Shri Bharat P. Shah & Shri Pathik B. Shah (AR) For The Revenue : Shri Vivekanand Ojha (DR) ORDER Per Ashwani Taneja (Accountant Member): This appeal has been .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

0,000/- each in two financial years but within six months of sale of original asset. (b) Where the assessee has made investment within six months from the end of the month in which original asset was sold. (c) Whether assessing officer is correct in treating the date of sale of original asset on 6th October 2009, instead of 101h October, 2009 on the facts of the case and calculating the period of six months for investment in long term specified assets accordingly. 2. Whether in fact and in law 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

onstruction is not acquired within two years though as per Income Tax Act, u/s 54F, the residential house under construction is required to be acquired in three years. 3. The appellant craves leave to add amend and/or after any of the above grounds of appeal." 2. During the course of hearing, arguments were made by Shri Bharat P. Shah & Shri Pathik B. Shah, Authorised Representative (AR) on behalf of the Assessee and by Shri Vivekanand Ojha, Departmental Representative (DR) on behalf 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

eriod of six months. As per the assessee, the date of transfer of asset was on 10.10.2009 whereas, as per the AO the date of transfer of asset was on 06.10.2009. During the course of hearing, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that there were two agreements, one pertaining to the assessee and other for the buyer, which lead to confusion with regard to dates. On the other hand, the AO held that the actual date of agreement was on 06.10.2009 only but subsequent agreement dated 10.10.2009 ha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

re be one agreement of two dates. There should be only one agreement. Even if separate agreement is made for the buyers, the date is supposed to be same. We find that none of the authorities have looked into the aspect of dates properly. As per AO, the date of six months should be reckoned from 06.10.2009 and therefore date of investment being 08.04.2010 shall fall beyond the period of six months, whereas the assessee says that the six months period should be reckoned from the date 10.10.2009 wh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ively taken into account by the AO to decide this issue afresh. The assessee is also free to take all other factual and legal issues including its alternative arguments with regard to computation of period of six months from the end of the month in which the transfer of the asset has taken place. 3.2. Further the connected issues raised in this regard was whether the assessee can be allowed the investment in respect of 50 lakhs in one financial year and the second investment in next financial ye .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s relied upon before us. In the case of Shri Aspi Ginwala (supra), it was held as under: While going through the proviso of section 54EC, we find that the proviso to section reads as under:- [Provided that the investment made on or after the 1st Day of April, 2007 in the long term specified asset by an assessee during any financial year does not exceed fifty lakh rupee] It is clear from this proviso that where assessee transfers his capital asset after 30th September of the financial year he get .....

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 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that - even though a liberal interpretation has to be given to such a provision the interpretation has to be as per the wording of the section. If the wording of the section is clear, then benefits which are not available cannot be conferred by ignoring or misinterpreting words in the section" Here the situation is reverse. Since the wording of the proviso to section 54EC is clear, the benefits which are available to the assessee cannot be denied. In view .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ision to be taken by the AO in terms of issue sent back to the file of AO for verification of dates. 4. Ground No.2: In this ground, the assessee had raised an issue that the AO had wrongly denied the benefit of deduction u/s 54F for ₹ 86 lakhs, on the ground that the Flat was under construction and was not acquired within prescribed period of two years. It has been alleged by the lower authorities that since assessee had acquired the Flat by way of a purchase, this exercise should have be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     Updates     ↓  


|| 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