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>Court allows set-off for agricultural land purchase against capital gains under Income Tax Act</h1> <h3>Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus T. Narayanaswamy</h3> Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus T. Narayanaswamy - [1985] 156 ITR 194, 18 TAXMANN 439 Issues:1. Whether the assessee is entitled to set off the sum incurred for the purchase of fresh agricultural lands against the capital gains arising from the acquisition of agricultural landsRs.2. Whether possession of the lands by the HUF prior to partition can be considered as possession by the coparcener for the purpose of claiming relief under section 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961Rs.Analysis:Issue 1: The first issue revolves around the entitlement of the assessee to set off the amount incurred for the purchase of new agricultural lands against the capital gains from the acquired lands. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) rejected the claim, stating that the assessee did not hold the lands for agricultural purposes for two years preceding the acquisition. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) allowed the set-off, finding that the assessee had fulfilled the conditions of utilizing the sale proceeds for purchasing new lands within two years and holding the lands for agricultural purposes. The Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision, emphasizing that possession by the HUF should also be considered as possession by the coparcener. The High Court concurred with the Tribunal and dismissed the Revenue's contention, affirming that the conditions of section 54B were met, and no further reference was necessary.Issue 2: The second issue concerns whether possession of the lands by the HUF before partition can be deemed as possession by the coparcener to claim relief under section 54B. The Revenue argued that the possession by the HUF should not be attributed to the coparcener. However, the High Court, aligning with the AAC and the Tribunal, held that the possession by the HUF, in which the assessee was a coparcener, should be considered as possession by the coparcener. The court emphasized that the assessee had been in possession of the lands for a year before the acquisition and that the joint family's possession should be imputed to the coparcener. As all conditions of section 54B were satisfied, the court dismissed the petition, upholding the decision in favor of the assessee.
TaxTMI 