TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal grants appeal, remands Long Term Capital Gain exemption for reevaluation under section 10(38).</h1> <h3>Madhabi Nag Versus A.C.I.T., Circle-1, Bankura Asansol</h3> Madhabi Nag Versus A.C.I.T., Circle-1, Bankura Asansol - TMI Issues:1. Rectification of apparent error in Long Term Capital Gain taxation under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Validity of rejecting rectification application due to lack of revised return of income.3. Interpretation of the applicability of section 10(38) exemption on Long Term Capital Gain.4. Jurisdiction of appellate authorities to consider claims without a revised return of income.Analysis:1. The appellant, an individual, declared Long Term Capital Gain on the sale of shares for A.Y. 2005-06. The Assessing Officer (AO) accepted the income initially. However, the appellant filed a rectification application under section 154 of the Act, asserting that the Long Term Capital Gain was exempt under section 10(38). The AO rejected the application citing inadequate details of acquisition and proof of payment of STT.2. The appellant appealed to the CIT(A), who upheld the AO's decision, emphasizing that the appellant did not file a revised return claiming exemption under section 10(38). The CIT(A) relied on the Goetze (India) Ltd case, stating that a claim unsupported by a revised return cannot be accepted. Subsequently, the appellant approached the Tribunal challenging the CIT(A)'s order.3. The Tribunal referred to CBDT Circular No.14 of 1955, emphasizing the duty of revenue authorities to assist taxpayers in claiming reliefs. It disagreed with the CIT(A) and cited the Goetze (India) Ltd case to assert that appellate authorities can consider claims even without a revised return. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the exemption claim under section 10(38) and instructed the appellant to provide necessary evidence.4. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanding the question of Long Term Capital Gain exemption to the AO for fresh consideration. The appellant was directed to submit supporting evidence. The judgment was pronounced on 09.12.2015.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
