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 →

Nagesh Vitthal Salgaonkar Versus DCIT 24 (3) , Mumbai

2017 (1) TMI 1323 - ITAT MUMBAI

Rectification of mistake - assessee is not entitled for capital gains deduction in respect of the investments made u/s 54EC - whether the buyer has not become full owner of the transferred asset on that date since the contents of clauses (4) and (8) were not met? - Held that:- The date of registration of the property is not to be reckoned for the purpose of computing the timing of reinvestment of the capital gains when the said sale deed recited clause (4), which is extracted above. Since, the f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

unakara Rao, Accountant Member And Shri Amarjit Singh, Judicial Member Appellant by : Shri Mandar Vaidya Respondent by : Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR ORDER Per D. Karunakara Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee on 02.05.2016 is against the order of the CIT (A)-42, Mumbai dated 5.1.2016 for the assessment year 2008-2009. In this appeal, assessee raised the following grounds which read as under:- 1. The Ld CIT (A) grossly erred in upholding the order passed u/s 154. It is submitted that on 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

A) fell in error of law in not appreciating that the time period of six (6) months for making investment in bonds for exemption u/s 54EC, would commence from receipt of total consideration. 2. Before us, at the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee briefed relevant facts of the case and submitted that the assessee, who is an individual, filed the return of income declaring the total income of ₹ 31,43,010/-. It is a case where the Assessing Officer rectified the original assessment order date .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sale agreement dated 31.8.2007 / 2.8.2007. In the original assessment, AO allowed the claim of said deduction but, however, during the proceedings u/s 154 of the Act, relying on the date of agreement of sale ie 2.8.2007, AO denied the benefit of capital gains deduction. In the process, AO ignored the fact that the buyer has not become full owner of the transferred asset on that date since the contents of clauses (4) and (8) were not met. In this regard, he read out the clause (4), which read 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

2008, it is only on that day the purchaser got the rights on the property and therefore, the original claim of the assessee is proper. In this regard, Ld AR cited the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Janak Dulari Devi and Another vs. Kapildeo Rai and Another [2011] 6 SCC 555. Bringing our attention to para 13 in page 564 of the said judgment (supra), Ld Counsel for the assessee read out the following:- 13. Where the sale deed recites that on receipt of the total conside .....

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