News Update

PM-STIAC discusses accelerating Industry-Academia Partnership for Research and InnovationIndia, Singapore hold dialogue over cyber policy44 bids received under 10th Round of Commercial Coal Mine AuctionsCops arrest former Dy PM of Nepal in cooperative fraud casePuri highlights India's Petrochemical potential at India Chem 2024UN reports record high cocaine production in ColombiaMinister unveils 'Aviation Park' showcasing India's Aviation HeritageED finds PFI wanted to start Islamic movement in IndiaBlocking Credit - Rule 86ASEBI says investors can use 3-in-1 accounts to apply online for securitiesI-T- Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) need not be imposed when assessee moved an adjournment application & later complied with notice u/s 142(1): ITAT4 Kanwariyas killed as vehicle runs over them in Banka, BiharI-T- Accounting principles do not prescribe maintaining of a day-to-day stock register, and the books of accounts cannot be rejected on this basis alone: ITATUN food looted and diverted to army in EthiopiaCus - Alleged breach of conditions for operating public bonded warehouse; CESTAT rightly rejected allegations, having found no evidence of any such breach: HCUS budget deficit surges beyond USD 1.8 trillionST - Onus for proving admissibility of Cenvat Credit rests with service provider under Rule 9(6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004: CESTATIf China goes into Taiwan, Trump promises to impose additional tariffsRussians love Indian films; Putin lauds BollywoodCus - Classification of goods is to be determined in accordance with Customs Tariff Act & General Interpretative Rules; Country-of-Origin Certificate may offer some guidance, but cannot solely dictate classification: CESTATCus - Benefit of such Country-of-Origin certificates cannot be denied if all relevant conditions are met under the applicable Customs Tariff rules: CESTATCuban power grid collapses; Country plunges into darknessCus - As per trite law, merely claiming a classification or exemption does not constitute mis-declaration or suppression - any misclassification does not equate to willful intent to evade duty: CESTATKarnataka mulling over 2% fee on aggregator platforms to bankroll gig worker welfare fundCus - Extended limitation cannot be invoked in case of assessee who is a regular importer with a consistent classification approach: 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 Samrat Choudhary, Hon’ble Deputy CM & FM of State of Bihar, delivering inaugural speech at TIOL Tax Congress 2024.



Justice A K Patnaik, Mentor to Hon'ble Jury for TIOL Awards 2024, addressing the gathering at the event.