News Update

US Nurse convicted of killing 17 patients - 700 yrs of jail-term awardedGST - Payment of pre-deposit through Form GST DRC-03 instead of the prescribed Form APL-01 - Petitioner attributes it to technical glitches - Respondent is the proper authority to decide the question of fact: HC2nd Session of India-Nigeria Joint Trade Committee held in AbujaGST - Since SCN is bereft of any details and suffers from infirmities that go to the root of the cause, SCN is quashed and set aside: HC1717 candidates to contest elections in phase 4 of Lok Sabha ElectionsGST - Once Appellate Authority comes to the conclusion that SCN was issued by an officer who was not competent; reply was also considered by an incompetent authority and the Competent Authority had not applied its independent mind, Appellate Authority could not have assumed original jurisdiction and proceeded further with the matter: HC7th India-Indonesia Joint Defence Cooperation Committee meeting held in New DelhiGST - Neither the Show Cause Notice nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation of registration, therefore, the same cannot be sustained: HCMining sector registers record production in FY 2023-24GST - If the proper officer was of the view that the reply is unclear and unsatisfactory, he could have sought further details by providing such opportunity - Having failed to do so, order cannot be sustained - Matter remanded: HCAnother quake of 6.0 magnitude rocks Philippines; No damage reported so farI-T - Initial burden of proof rested on assessee to substantiate his claim of having incurred expenditure on improvement of property: ITATTrade ban: Israel hits back against Turkey with counter-measuresI-T - Agricultural income can be treated by ITO as undisclosed income in absence of any substantial / corroborative material to prove same: ITATCanada arrests three persons in alleged killing of Sikh separatistI-T - Income from sale of property has to be classified & characterised only in manner of computation as per section 45(2): ITATCus - When there is nothing on record to show that appellant had connived with other three persons to import AA batteries under the guise of declaring goods as Calcium Carbonate, penalty imposed on appellant are set aside: HCCongress fields Rahul Gandhi from Rae Bareli and Kishori Lal Sharma from AmethiGST -Since both the SCNs and orders pertain to same tax period raising identical demand by two different officers of same jurisdiction, proceedings on SCNs are clubbed and shall be re-adjudicated by one proper officer: HCFormer Jharkhand HC Chief Justice, Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra appointed as President of GST TribunalSale of building constructed on leasehold land - GST implicationI-T - Interest received u/s 28 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 awarded by Court is capital receipt being integral part of enhanced compensation and is exempt u/s 10(37): ITATGirl students advised by Pak college to keep away from political events
 
I-T - Inception of construction of new residential property, even before transfer of existing one, will not debar investor from seeking benefit of Sec 54 : ITAT

By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, MAR 05, 2018: THE issue is - Whether formation of construction agreement prior to transfer of old property, is no basis to deny benefit of exemption u/s 54F, if construction was completed within three years from date of transfer of old residential property. YES is the answer.

Facts of the case:

The Assessee, an individual, had sold a flat owned by him vide agreement to sale. As per the assessee, he had entered into sale cum construction agreement with M/s Skyline Construction and Housing Pvt. Ltd. for purchase of a flat at Bangalore and had made payment amounting to Rs. 57,14,699/- towards the purchase of new residential house. It was assessee’s contention this residential property was acquired within a period of three years from the date of sale of old residential property, and since the construction of new house had been completed within the period of three years from the date of transfer of old residential property, requirements of section 54 were fulfilled. The AO however, was of the view that the case of assessee did not fall within the precincts of section 54 as no allotment or agreement was made within the stipulated period of one year from the date of sale of the old property and further no substantial payments were made towards the cost of new asset and only an amount of Rs 34,54,371/- was paid during the year under consideration. The AO therefore proceeded to add back the amount of exemption claimed by assessee u/s 54 amounting to Rs. 33,18,000/- to the income of assessee.

On appeal, the FAA noted that the amount of capital gain not utilised for the construction of new house upto the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) should have been deposited in the notified capital gain account scheme before filing of return of income which was not so done by the assessee. The FAA further noted that the assessee had appropriated Rs. 7,62,674/- only towards the construction of new flat after date of transfer of old asset and, therefore, the assessee was entitled to deduction u/s 54 only in respect of payment of Rs. 7,62,674/-.

Tribunal held that,

++ it is found that Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Bharti Mishra, has observed that section 54F(4) prescribes appropriation of sale consideration of original asset towards provision of new asset made within one year before the date of transfer of original asset, two years from the date of transfer or construction of new in-house property, within three years from the date of transfer of original receipt but the Act does not prescribe any condition as to the date of commencement of construction of house property which may be commenced even before the date of transfer of original receipt. Similarly, Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs J.R. Subramanya Bhat, had expressed similar view and had held that investment made towards construction of house property prior to the date of transfer should also be eligible as deduction for the purpose of section 54;

++ accordingly, respectfully following the ratio laid down by Delhi High Court and Karnataka High Court, the provisions of section 54F do not prescribe any condition as to the date of commencement of construction of new house property, meaning thereby that the construction of house property may be commenced even before the date of transfer of original asset. However, it should be completed within three years after the date of transfer of original asset. On the facts of this case, it is found that the construction of house property had been completed within three years from the date of transfer and accordingly, the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s 54F in respect of the two disputed amount, which were expended prior to the date of transfer of original asset.

(See 2018-TIOL-330-ITAT-DEL)


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.