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>Investment Limit Exemption: ITAT Rules in Favor of Taxpayer on REC Bonds Dispute</h1> <h3>DCIT CIR 6 (1), Mumbai Versus Nilesh Ramesh Ganjwala</h3> DCIT CIR 6 (1), Mumbai Versus Nilesh Ramesh Ganjwala - TMI Issues:1. Interpretation of Section 54EC of the Income Tax Act regarding exemption on investment in REC Bonds exceeding the statutory limit.Analysis:Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 54ECThe case involved a dispute regarding the interpretation of Section 54EC of the Income Tax Act concerning the exemption on investment in REC Bonds exceeding the statutory limit. The assessee had claimed an exemption of Rs. 1,00,00,000 under Section 54EC, which was challenged by the Assessing Officer (AO) as the total investment exceeded the prescribed limit of Rs. 50,00,000 in a financial year. The AO referred to a previous ITAT decision to support the restriction of the deduction to Rs. 50,00,000. However, the CIT-A ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the investment of Rs. 1 crore split into Rs. 50 lakhs each in two financial years was permissible under the law. The CIT-A relied on various decisions to support this conclusion.Analysis Continued:The Revenue appealed against the CIT-A's decision, arguing that the second proviso to Section 54EC was applicable in the case, as per a judgment of the Madras High Court. The High Court had clarified that the second proviso was effective from 11.04.2015 and not applicable to the assessment year in question. The ITAT carefully analyzed the legal provisions and the High Court's judgment in the case of CIT vs. C. Jaichander. The High Court had explained that the first proviso to Section 54EC(1) restricts the time limit for investment to six months after the property sale, with no cap on the investment in bonds. The second proviso, introduced in 2015, imposed a limit of Rs. 50,00,000 for investments made in the financial year of property transfer and the subsequent year. The ITAT concluded that since the second proviso was not applicable for the relevant assessment year, the assessee's investment of Rs. 1 crore in two financial years was permissible under Section 54EC. Therefore, the ITAT upheld the CIT-A's decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
TaxTMI 