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>Capital gain deemed long term, entitling exemption under section 54EC, based on possession and payment dates.</h1> <h3>Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7, Ahmedabad Versus Shri Dilip Ramanlal Parikh</h3> Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7, Ahmedabad Versus Shri Dilip Ramanlal Parikh - Tmi Issues:1. Determination of capital gain as short term or long term.2. Validity of claim of exemption u/s.54EC.3. Possession and ownership of the land in question.Analysis:Issue 1: Determination of capital gain as short term or long term:The Revenue challenged the order of the CIT(A) regarding the treatment of long term capital gain as short term capital gain. The AO contended that the land was held for less than 36 months based on purchase and sale deeds. The CIT(A) reversed the AO's decision, emphasizing that the possession of the land was with the assessee since 2002, even though the purchase deed was executed in 2007. The CIT(A) highlighted that registration is not mandatory for recognition of transfer and cited relevant legal precedents. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the asset was held for more than 36 months, and the gain should be treated as long term capital gain.Issue 2: Validity of claim of exemption u/s.54EC:The Revenue also disputed the CIT(A)'s allowance of exemption u/s.54EC. The CIT(A) granted the deduction as the land transfer resulted in long term capital gain. The Tribunal affirmed this decision, stating that since the gain was considered long term, the assessee was eligible for the deduction u/s.54EC. Consequently, the addition of the capital gain and relief to the appellant were upheld.Issue 3: Possession and ownership of the land in question:The dispute revolved around the possession and ownership of the land. The AO argued that possession was handed over to the assessee only in 2007 based on the purchase deed. However, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal found that the possession was with the assessee since 2002, supported by payment details from 1996. The Tribunal held that the possession date should be considered from the actual payment date, not the formal purchase deed date. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the holding of the land as a long term capital asset.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the treatment of capital gain, validity of exemption claim, and possession of the land. The judgment emphasized the importance of actual possession and payment dates in determining the holding period for capital gain tax purposes.
TaxTMI 