Tribunal Grants Partial Relief: Exemption Claim Allowed, LTCL Set Off Denied, Income Issue Remanded, Interest Recomputed.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal. It granted the claimed exemption u/s 54F for Rs. 46,11,166, rejecting the Assessing Officer's restriction. The set off of LTCL on securities was denied, aligning with legal precedent. The issue of total income was remanded to CIT(A) for verification. Interest charged u/s 234B was upheld but required recomputation.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Exemption u/s 54F of the Act.
2. Set off of Long Term Capital Loss (LTCL) on sale of securities.
3. Total income declared by assessee.
4. Charging of Interest u/s 234B of the Act.

Summary:

1. Exemption u/s 54F of the Act:
The assessee challenged the restriction of exemption u/s 54F to Rs. 6,23,433 against the claimed Rs. 46,11,166. The assessee received compensation of Rs. 84,64,701 for land acquired by BMRCL and purchased a flat for Rs. 50,98,720. The Assessing Officer restricted the exemption, citing that the flat booking and housing loan were made more than a year before the compensation receipt. The Tribunal found that ownership of the new asset was vested only by the Registered Sale Deed dated 11.9.2008. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 54F to the extent of Rs. 46,11,166 as claimed.

2. Set off of Long Term Capital Loss (LTCL) on sale of securities:
The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing the set off of LTCL of Rs. 3,22,314 against LTCG on sale of immovable property. The Tribunal, following the reasoning of the Mumbai Tribunal in G.K. Ramamurthy's case, held that set off of LTCL on sale of listed securities, whose income is exempt u/s 10(38), against LTCG on immovable property is contrary to law. Thus, the assessee's claim was rejected.

3. Total income declared by assessee:
The assessee argued that the Assessing Officer incorrectly adopted the returned income at Rs. 27,98,530 instead of Rs. 26,48,610. The Tribunal found that this issue was raised before the CIT(Appeals) but was not addressed. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for examination and verification of the correct figure of income as returned.

4. Charging of Interest u/s 234B of the Act:
The assessee challenged the charging of interest u/s 234B amounting to Rs. 2,20,341. The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's action, stating that charging of interest is consequential and mandatory. However, the Assessing Officer was directed to recompute the interest chargeable while giving effect to this order.

Conclusion:
The assessee's appeal was partly allowed.

---