ITO WD 21(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. SANJIVA SHETTY, MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not make the investment within the stipulated time because the eligible bond scheme was closed. However, the assessee invested as soon as the scheme reopened, and the First Appellate Authority's order allowing the deduction was upheld.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed a deduction under section 54EC for investment in REC bonds after transferring a capital asset. The Assessing Officer denied the deduction as the investment was made after the six-month period from the transfer date, and the bond scheme was temporarily closed.
What were the issues?
Whether the deduction under section 54EC is allowable when the investment is made shortly after the scheme reopens, after the initial six-month period expired due to the scheme's closure.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- Aspi Cinwala v. Asstt. CIT{2012}5 citing81 ITD 163 · 2002 · ITAT
Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद�य लेखा लेखा सद�य सद�य राजे�� सद�य राजे�� राजे�� केकेकेके अनुसार राजे�� अनुसार अनुसार PER RAJENDRA, AM- अनुसार Challenging the order dt.5/11/2012 of CIT(A)-32,the Assessing Officer(AO)has filed the present appeal. 2.The only ground of appeal deals with deduction under section 54EC of the Act amounting to Rs.30.00 lacs.During the assessment proceedings,the AO found that the assessee had transferred a capital asset on 22.6.2006 on which capital gain of 42.96 lacs was worked out, that the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.30.00 lacs against the long term capital Gains (LTCG,that he had claimed to have made investment of Rs.30.00 lacs in REC Bonds, that the bonds were purchased on 31.7.2007.The AO held that the asset was transferred on 22. 12. 2006,that the period of six months for availing the deduction u/s. 54EC expired on 22.6.2007, that the assessee had made investment on 31.7.2007, that the assessee had claimed that the scheme for eligible bonds was closed w.e.f. 31.3.2007 and later on it was again opened w.e.f. 2.7.2007, that he had issue cheque dt.15.6.2007, that the cheque was issued before the expiry of six months to the agent who invested in the bonds in the month of July.However, the AO did not agree with the contention of the assessee and held that investment u/s.54EC was beyond the time limit, accordingly he denied the deduction to the assessee. 3.Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA).Besides the argument advanced before the AO,the assessee stated that the CBDT had issued a circular,that his case was covered by the Circular, that the scheme was not open on 22.6.2007.After considering the submission of the assessee and the assessment order,the FAA held that the scheme for making investment in the eligible bonds u/s.54EC was open from 22.1.2007 to 31.3.2007 only,that on the last day of expiry of limitation on 22.06.2007 there was no scheme open for subscription,that as soon as subscrip - tion opened on 02.07.2007 the assessee invested in the bonds, hat the bonds were allotted to him on 31.07.2007,that the assessee could not be held in default for violation of conditions of section 54EC,that scheme re-opened on 2.7.2007,that the assessee had issue the cheque dt.15.6.2007, that the CBDT had extended the applicability of the scheme to those earlier cases where Long Term Assets were transferred between 29.9.2005 to 30.9.2006.He referred
913/13-Sanjiva Shetty
More judgments on Section 54EC
- Ramakrishna Reddy Makireddy, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-5(1), HyderabadITA 70/HYD/2026[2007-08]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2007-08
- Shailendra Kumar Sogani, Bhopal vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)…ITA 1076/IND/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Kashmira Rajnikant Doshi, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer Ward 42(1)(3), MumbaiITA 728/MUM/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- DCIT 19 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs Nisha Jhaveri, MumbaiITA 2389/MUM/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- Rajendra Chandanmal Pagaria, L/H of Late… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(1)…ITA 1221/PUN/2026[2011-12]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2011-12
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026