News Update

Cus - Warehousing of imported solar panels/solar modules - Instruction dated 9 th July 2022 appears to travel far beyond the advisory and clarificatory function which stands placed in the Board by virtue of s.151A of CA, hence quashed: HCCus - Petitioner had opted for conversion from a less rigorous procedure of availing Duty Drawback Scheme to a more rigorous procedure under Advance Authorisation Scheme and as per Circular 36/10-Customs, same was not possible: HCCX - Respondents cannot go beyond the Reward Scheme as no discretion is vested with them to release any amount towards the reward, before finalization of the proceedings against assessee: HCGST - Petitioner is given liberty to manually file an appeal against impugned order regarding transitional credit of SGST for which they had valid evidence for payment of VAT of same amount: HCGST - For the period for which return was filed, registration cannot be cancelled retrospectively: HCHas Globalisation favoured capital more than labour? Can taxing super-rich help?GST - SC asks Govt not to use coercion for recovering arrearsChanging Tax Landscape in IndiaPrivate equity funds pouring in India’s healthcare sectorInterpretation of StatutesGoogle, Microsoft move Delhi HC against order to erase non-consensual intimate images16th Finance Commission invites views from general public on terms of referenceEvery party committed to ensure PoK returns to India; Jaishankar695 candidates to contest LS elections in Phase 5Astronomers’ efforts lead to discovery of a rocky planet with atmosphereCSIR hosts Student-Science Connect program on Climate ChangeVolkswagen asks EU not to raise tariffs on EVs from ChinaI-T - Assessee given insufficient time to file reply to Show Cause Notice; assessment order quashed; matter remanded for reconsidering assessee's replies: HCChina blocks imports from Intel & QualcommI-T - Assessee has 5 email IDs & responded to communications received on one of these IDs; Assessee cannot claim to have been denied an opportunity of personal hearing before passing of order: HCRecord rainfall damages over 1 lakh homes in Brazil; over 100 lives lostI-T- Additions framed u/s 68 r/w Section 115BBE are unwarranted where assessee duly explains nature & source of cash receipts, through sufficient documentation: ITATRussia bombards Ukraine’s power supply; Serious outages fearedI-T- Re-assessment cannot be resorted to beyond 4 years from end of relevant AY, where assessee has not failed to file ITR or to make full & true disclosure of facts necessary for assessment: ITATIndia received foreign remittance of USD 111 bn in 2022, says UNI-T- Receipt of subscription fees can't be considered as commercial activity: ITATPitroda resigns as Chairman of Indian Overseas Congress over racist remarkST - In case of payment received through cheque, it is the date of honouring cheque, which has to be construed as date of receipt of advance payment and since amount was received by appellant on or after appointed date, appellant would not be entitle to benefit of exemption notification: CESTAT86 flights of AI Express cancelled as crew goes on mass sick leaveCus - When undervaluation of goods is alleged solely based on value of contemporaneous imports, all details relating to such imports are to be necessarily established by Revenue: CESTAT
 
I-T - Whether when assessee invests in purchase of land, which is transferred to builder for construction of flats on sharing basis, assessee continues to be eligible for Sec 54 benefits - YES: ITAT

By TIOL News Service

HYDERABAD, MAY 08, 2013: THE issue before the Bench is - Whether when assessee invests in purchase of land, which is transferred to a builder for construction of flats on sharing basis, assessee continues to be eligible for Sec 54 benefits. And the verdict favours trhe assessee.

Facts of the case

The
assessee along with another person jointly acquired certain property for a consideration of Rs.1,95,430.00. Later another person relinquished her rights over the said property. Thereafter the assessee entered into a development agreement with M/s Tibrewala Builders for construction of flats over the said property on 50:50 sharing basis. Accordingly, five flats fell to the share of the assessee, which were claimed to have been sold by her during the year under consideration for a total consideration of Rs.1,79,00,000. The assessee filed her return of income declaring total income of Rs.58,839. In the return of income, the assessee while computing LTCG claimed exemption u/s 54 towards purchase of plot and construction of house besides deposit in capital gains account scheme. The AO noted that exemption u/s. 54 was available only where the assessee purchased a residential house within a period of one year, after the date of transfer or sale of original asset. The AO held that as the assessee purchased only an open plot for construction of a house over it and not a residential house, she was not entitled to claim exemption of the amount of Rs.69,61,500/- u/s 54. The AO however, allowed exemption u/s. 54, on an amount of Rs.64,05,000 deposited in capital gains account scheme. The CIT(A) came to a conclusion that since the assessee had made payment for purchase of the plot from a different source and had not actually utilised the sale consideration received from transfer of the original asset, no deduction u/s. 54 can be allowed to the assessee.

On Appeal before the Tribunal the AR submitted that the only requirement u/s. 54 is the assessee must purchase a residential house within two years or construct a residential house within three years of the transfer of the original asset. It was submitted that investment in purchase of plot for constructing a residential house is sufficient compliance for the provision contained u/s. 54 and in case construction of the residential house is not made within three years, then such income can be charged to capital gains tax .The DR submitted that for claiming exemption u/s 54 the consideration received from sale of original asset has to be utilsied in purchase or construction of the new residential house; and otherwise, the intent and purpose of the provision will be defeated.

Having heard the parties, the Tribunal held that,

++ exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 54 cannot be denied on the ground that the assessee has not utilised the sale consideration received from the sale of flats itself, in purchasing the plot. Law is well settled by the judicial precedents that investment in purchase of pot for construction of house would entitle an assessee to claim exemption u/s.54 or 54F of the Act. Board’s circular No.667 dated 18.10.1993 also says so. The assessee is eligible to claim exemption of the amount of Rs.69,61,500 invested in purchase of land u/s 54;

++ on the issue of method of computation of LTCG adopted by the AO, it is evident from the orders of the revenue authorities that the assessee has not produced enough supporting evidence to prove that she has in fact incurred expenditure of Rs.6 lakhs towards cost of construction and cost of improvement. In such a view of the matter, the allowance of 50% of cost of construction at Rs.3 lakhs is reasonable, and no interference is called for;

++ on the issue of revenue authorities, not allowing the amount of Rs.3,00,000 being the cost of boundary wall as part of construction cost of the new property,it is quite evident that they have not disputed the fact that the assessee has incurred the expenditure of Rs.3 lakhs in the construction of the boundary wall. The assessee is entitled for deduction of Rs.3 lakhs, being expenditure incurred on construction of compound wall.

(See 2013-TIOL-328-ITAT-HYD)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri N K Singh, recipient of TIOL FISCAL HERITAGE AWARD 2023, delivering his acceptance speech at Fiscal Awards event held on April 6, 2024 at Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi.


Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.