SHITAL PIYUSHKUMAR PATEL,ANAND vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, ANAND

ITA 407/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 October 2024AY 2009-10Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)7 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for the deduction under Section 54EC. This is because the assessee established a direct nexus between the advance received for the property sale and the investment made in NHAI bonds on the same date.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 54EC for an investment in NHAI bonds made on June 25, 2008, prior to the sale of an immovable property on August 16, 2008. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction, stating the investment must be made after the property transfer.

What were the issues?

Whether an investment made in specified assets before the date of property transfer, using advance sale consideration, qualifies for deduction under Section 54EC.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54EC

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, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Pronounced: 23.10.2024

PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 28.02.2024 passed for A.Y. 2009-10. 2. The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:-

“(1) That on facts, and in law, the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has grievously erred in confirming the disallowance of claim or deduction of Rs.50,00,000/- u/s. 54EC of the Act. (2) That on facts and in law, the entire claim of deduction ought to have been allowed as prayed for. (3) The appellant craves

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 54EC

All 476 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54EC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →