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>Appeal Dismissed in Tax Liability Case under Section 54F of Income Tax Act</h1> <h3>Professor P.N. Shetty Versus Office of Income-tax Officer</h3> Professor P.N. Shetty Versus Office of Income-tax Officer - TMI Issues:Challenge to rejection of writ petition concerning tax liability on unutilized capital gains under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Analysis:1. The appellant filed a return of income for the assessment year 2016-17 and deposited a portion of the sale consideration from an immovable property into the Capital Gain Account Scheme, 1988. A notice was issued under Section 142(3) of the Income Tax Act based on admitted facts, aiming to tax the unutilized capital gains under Section 54F.2. The appellant acquired a new property before the expiry of three years from the original asset's transfer date. The notice sought to tax the unutilized amount after deducting the cost of the new asset. The Single Judge held that the appellant could withdraw the deposited amount subject to applicable tax deductions.3. The appellant contended that as he partially utilized the amount by purchasing a new property, the remaining sum in the Capital Gain Account should be refunded entirely. He relied on the proviso to Section 54F(1) of the Act, arguing that if the amount is used partly, it should not be taxed under Section 45.4. The Court examined Section 54F(4) of the Act, emphasizing that unutilized amounts deposited in the Capital Gain Account Scheme are taxable if not fully utilized for a new asset within the specified period. The Court noted that under Section 45(1), the deposited amount is taxable as income in the year of transfer.5. The proviso to Section 54F(4) carves out exceptions for full and partial utilization of deposited amounts. It specifies that if only a part is used for a new asset, the excess unutilized amount is chargeable under Section 45. The Single Judge's interpretation of this provision was upheld, allowing the appellant to withdraw the deposited amount subject to tax deductions.6. The Court found no error in the Single Judge's interpretation of the law. The appeal challenging the rejection of the writ petition was dismissed, affirming the tax liability on unutilized capital gains under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
TaxTMI 