2020 (3) TMI 876 - AT - Income Tax

Tax Appeal Outcome: Sec. 54F Deduction Allowed, Settlement Disallowance Deleted, Interest Issue Referred

The appeal involved disputes regarding sec. 54F deduction claim, cost of improvement claim, disallowed settlement amount, and interest computation issue. ... Deduction u/s 54F - LTCG - construction of residential flat - conversion of capital assets into stock in trade - HELD THAT:- As per amended sub-section(2) of section 45 of the Act, which was inserted by the Taxation Legislation (Amendment Act), 1984 w.e.f. 1.4.1985, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the profits or gains arising from the transfer by way of conversion by the owner of a capital asset into, or its treatment by him as stock-in-trade of a business carried on by him shall be chargeable to income tax as his income of the previous year in which such stock in trade is sold or otherwise transferred by him and, for the purposes of section 48, the fair market value of the asset on the date of such conversion or treatment shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset. In view of above CBDT circular and order of Special Bench of Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Octavius Steel & Co. Ltd [2002 (5) TMI 204 - ITAT CALCUTTA] have no hesitation to hold that the Assessing Officer was also not correct in denying benefit of section 54F of the Act to the assessee on the ground that residential flat was not constructed after the date of transfer but alongwith saleable flats. Addition u/s 43CA - Amount pertaining to a residential unit offered as a settlement to one Md. Ekram way back in the year 2009 - Revenue’s case is that both the lower authorities have rightly invoked se. 43CA of the Act since the corresponding agreement took place on 28.02.2015 - HELD THAT:- Departmental representative fails to rebut the clinching fact that the court proceedings qua the foregoing settlement attained finality in the year 2009 whereas sec. 43CA of the Act came into effect much later w.e.f. 01.04.2014. We therefore go by the clinching evidence of court’ settlement in the year 2009 than the agreement between the parties and direct Assessing Officer to delete the impugned disallowance. Interest computation u/s 234A and 234B - HELD THAT:- Issue restored to the Assessing Officer in view of hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in Ajay Prakash Verma vs. ITO [2013 (1) TMI 140 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] Issues:1. Sec. 54F deduction claim for capital gains on property conversion.2. Claim of cost of improvement of capital asset.3. Disallowance under sec. 43CA for a settlement amount.4. Interest computation issue based on a high court decision.Sec. 54F Deduction Claim:The appeal involved the assessee's grievance against the denial of sec. 54F deduction claim of &8377; 60,94,982/- for the assessment year 2015-16. The issue centered around the conversion of a capital asset into stock-in-trade in 2012 and subsequent sale in 2014. The Revenue contended that the date of transfer should be considered as the conversion date as per sec. 2(47)(iii) of the Act. Referring to a previous tribunal's decision, the tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under sec. 54F based on relevant CBDT circulars and judicial precedents. The tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction.Cost of Improvement Claim:The counsel did not press for the claim of &8377; 77,758/- for the improvement cost of the capital asset, which was affirmed accordingly.Disallowed Settlement Amount:The dispute revolved around an amount of &8377; 4,47,846/- related to a settlement for a residential unit in 2009, with the Revenue invoking sec. 43CA of the Act based on an agreement in 2015. The tribunal found that the settlement in 2009 predated the relevant provision of sec. 43CA, which came into effect in 2014. Therefore, the tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance.Interest Computation Issue:The interest computation issue was referred back to the Assessing Officer based on a high court decision in Ajay Prakash Verma vs. ITO, as per the tribunal's decision.The appeal was partly allowed, and the order was pronounced on 2nd March 2020, directing the Assessing Officer to take necessary actions based on the tribunal's findings.