BIMLA DEVI D SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 24(1)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2270/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 November 2016AY 2006-074 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention regarding errors in the revenue authorities' orders and the applicability of High Court judgments on the relevance of possession date. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed exemption under Section 54 for capital gains on the sale of a flat, having purchased three new flats. The Assessing Officer denied the exemption as the purchase agreement for one flat was dated prior to the sale of the old asset, despite the assessee arguing possession was taken later and most payment was made within the stipulated period.

What were the issues?

The key issue was whether the date of the purchase agreement or the date of possession should be considered for determining eligibility for deduction under Section 54, especially when a significant portion of the payment was made within the stipulated period before the sale of the original asset.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI JOGINDER SINGH & SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh Kake
For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, DR
Hearing: 15.09.2016Pronounced: 11.11.2016

सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 15.09.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 11.11.2016 आदेश / O R D E R

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee on 213.2013 is against the order of the CIT (A)-34, Mumbai dated 9.1.2013 for the assessment year 2006-07. In this appeal, assessee raised the following ground which reads as under:- “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld AO erred in not allowing the exemption u/s 54 of the Act amounting to Rs. 3,85,476/- without understanding the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong & contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act and the Rules made there under.”

2. Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income claiming deduction u/s 54 of the Act in respect of the capital gains earned on sale of flat. Assessee sold a flat on 24.3.2006 and purchased three different properties ie Flats No. 202; 203 and 204 in Neelkanth Apartment, Malad (W), Mumbai. As per the provisions, assessee is expected to invest the capital gains one year prior to the transfer of old asset or two years later to the date of transfer of assets. Assessee claimed deduction u/s 54 of the Act in respect of the Flat No.204, whose purchase value is Rs. 18.25 lakhs excluding other incidental charges such as stamp duty, registration and other charges. Flat No. 204, which is the subject matter of deduction u/s54, was purchased by the assessee vide purchase agreement dated

More judgments on Section 54

All 1,745 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →