9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1517X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R : The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-1, Gurgaon dated 02.02.2017. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return on 31.05.2013 declaring an income of s. 8,72,370/-. The case was assessed computing the capital gains at Rs.1,07,50,047/-. The assessee claimed deduction u/s 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs.65,15,210/-. There is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 30.7.2018 wherein it was held that while giving benefit to the assessee, the provision needs to be interpreted strictly and in case there is ambiguity, the benefit of such ambiguity cannot be claimed by the assessee and it must be interpreted in favour of the revenue. 6. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Antony Parakal Kurian Vs. ACIT [2022] 138 taxmann.com 440 held that the phr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the court has not only to look at the words but also to look at the context and the object of such words relating to such matter and interpret the meaning intended to be conveyed by the use of the words under the circumstances. The word "assessee" occurring in section 54B must be interpreted in such a manner as to accord with the context and subject of its usage. A reading of section 54B of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of CIT Vs. Dinesh Verma [2015] 60 taxmann.com 461 held that, "17. The Tribunal observed that it is settled now that an assessee can purchase a new asset or part thereof in the name of his wife and that there was sufficient justification for the same on considerations, such as, stamp duty rebate, social considerations, security for ladies. The Tribunal noted that as long as the funds are inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basis that his wife invested the amount of Rs. 16,84,700/- herself." 9. Hence, keeping in view the facts of the case, provisions of the Act and the legal proposition, we decline to interfere with the decision of the ld. CIT(A) in disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 54B with regard to the agricultural land purchased on 24.01.2012 and on 16.08.2012 amounting to Rs.35,83,277/- and Rs.14,63,929/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
