TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 914X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which has been enacted with an object to promote investment in housing and enable the assessee to save tax on capital gains. It is a well settled rule of interpretation that benevolent provision should be interpreted liberally bearing in mind the object for which the provision is enacted. From narration of aforementioned facts, it is evident that the assessee had complied with the conditions stipulated u/s 54F of the Act and was entitled for exemption. The finding recorded by the tribunal that since, payments were made prior to one year before the date of transfer of shares and therefore, the assessee is not entitled to claim exemption u/s 54F of the Act cannot but be termed as perverse. - I.T.A. NO.238 OF 2015 - - - Dated:- 12-7-2021 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 88,98,970/- on account of acquisition of a new residential house property vide registered sale deed dated 28.03.2011. The return was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 16.12.2011 inter alia held that assessee had computed Long Term Capital Gain of ₹ 26,88,34,949/- under Section 54 of the Act in respect of an investment made in acquiring a new residential house property to the extent of ₹ 88,98,970/-. The Assessing Officer held that investment made by the assessee does not fall within purview of Section 54F of the Act and disallowed the claim and added the amount to the returned income. 3. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was dismissed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced on decisions in 'BAJAJ TEMPO LTD. VS. CIT', (1992) 196 ITR 188 (SC), 'CIT VS. GWALIOR RAYON SILK MANUFACTURING CO. LTD.', (1994) 196 ITR 149 (SC) and decisions in 'CIT VS. SMT. BRINDA KUMARI', (2002) 253 ITR 343 (DEL.), 'CIT VS. MRS. HILLA J.B.WADIA', (1995) 216 ITR 376 (BOM.), 'CIT VS. SAMBANDAM UDAYKUMR', (2012) 345 ITR 389 and 'CIT VS. SADARMAL KOTHARI', (2008) 302 ITR 286 (MAD.). 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that all the authorities under the Act have held that assessee has not satisfied the conditions prescribed in Section 54F of the Act and is therefore, not entitled to benefit of the aforesaid provision. The aforesaid findings are based on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in arises from the transfer of any long term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchased, or has within a period of three years after that date constructed, one residential house in India] (hereafter in this Section referred to as the new asset), the capital gain shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section, that is to say - (a) if the cost of the new asset is not less than the net consideration in respect of the original asset, the whole of such capital gain shall not be charged under Section 45 (b) if the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act ought to have examined the claim of the assessee whether or not the assessee had constructed a residential house within a period of three years from the date of transfer of original property. It is also pertinent to note that exemption under Section 54 of the Act is dependant on the date of acquisition of the property and not on the date of payment made in respect of such property. It is also noteworthy to mention that to claim an exemption under Section 54F of the Act, it is not necessary that the same sale consideration should be used for construction of a new house property. It is also noteworthy that Section 54F of the Act is a beneficial provision, which has been enacted with an object to promote investment in housing and enab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
