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>Ruling on Capital Gains: Reinvestment Details Reviewed, Due Date Clarified</h1> <h3>A.C.I.T., Cir-1, Siliguri Versus Mrs. Harmeet Kaur</h3> A.C.I.T., Cir-1, Siliguri Versus Mrs. Harmeet Kaur - TMI Issues:1. Justification of upholding the levy of long term capital gains.2. Treatment of due date for exemption u/s 54F.3. Implication of Section 50C on sale consideration.Issue 1: Justification of upholding the levy of long term capital gains:The appeal by the Revenue questioned the decision of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in upholding the levy of long term capital gains. The case involved an individual who sold commercial property and reinvested the proceeds in a flat and a plot of land. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed discrepancies in the reinvestment process, leading to the denial of exemption u/s 54F. The AO also adjusted the sale consideration value based on section 50C, resulting in computed long term capital gains. However, the CIT(A) considered the submission regarding the due date for filing returns and directed a re-examination of the reinvestment details. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee had satisfied the conditions for claiming deduction u/s 54F and remanded the issue to the AO for re-computation of capital gains based on the actual reinvestment amount.Issue 2: Treatment of due date for exemption u/s 54F:The dispute centered on whether the due date for filing returns should be as per section 139(1) or 139(4) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued that the net consideration was deposited in the capital gain account scheme within the extended period under section 139(4), citing relevant case law. The Tribunal concurred with the assessee, emphasizing that the due date under section 139(4) should be considered for claiming deduction u/s 54F. The Tribunal highlighted that the provisions of section 54F required reinvestment of the actual consideration received, not the deemed value under section 50C. The decision was influenced by the interpretation of 'net consideration' under section 54F, independent of section 50C, as endorsed by previous tribunal rulings.Issue 3: Implication of Section 50C on sale consideration:The Revenue raised concerns regarding the adoption of sale consideration under section 50C, leading to a higher value than declared by the assessee. While acknowledging the correctness of adopting the higher value, the Tribunal clarified that section 50C's deemed consideration was relevant only for section 48 of the Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the provisions of section 54F should be considered separately, focusing on the actual consideration received for reinvestment. The decision highlighted the need to interpret 'full value of consideration' under section 54F independently, disregarding the application of section 50C. The Tribunal directed a reassessment by the AO based on the actual sale consideration reinvested by the assessee.In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for a re-examination of the reinvestment details for accurate computation of long term capital gains. The judgment provided clarity on the due date for claiming deductions under section 54F and the limited applicability of section 50C's deemed consideration in determining capital gains.
TaxTMI 