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 partially granted with deductions for wife's investment; Sons' investments & payments to father's relatives dismissed.</h1> <h3>Sakharam Bhondve Versus ITO, Ward-9 (1), Pune</h3> Sakharam Bhondve Versus ITO, Ward-9 (1), Pune - TMI Issues Involved:1. Allowability of deduction under Section 54B of the Income Tax Act.2. Allowability of deduction of Rs. 11.50 lakhs on account of payments made to father's sisters and daughters.Detailed Analysis:1. Allowability of Deduction Under Section 54B of the Income Tax Act:- Reinvestment in the Names of Sons/Wife:The assessee claimed deductions under Section 54B for reinvestments in non-agricultural land/residential house/agricultural land in the names of his sons and wife. The CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer disallowed these claims, citing the Bombay High Court judgment in Prakash vs. ITO, which mandates that reinvestment must be in the name of the assessee alone. The Tribunal upheld this view for investments in the names of the sons but allowed the deduction for the investment in the name of the wife, relying on the Bombay High Court judgment in CIT vs. Kamal Wahal and the Delhi High Court judgment in CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora, which support a purposive construction of the provisions.- Reinvestment by Way of Advances:The assessee also claimed a deduction for an advance payment of Rs. 18,00,000/- for the purchase of agricultural land. The CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer disallowed this claim, stating that the transaction was incomplete and involved part payments by the sons. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to examine the ownership of the Rs. 18,00,000/- paid and allowed the claim to the extent the contribution belonged to the assessee.2. Allowability of Deduction of Rs. 11.50 Lakhs on Account of Payments Made to Father's Sisters and Daughters:- Payments to Father's Sisters and Daughters:The assessee claimed that Rs. 11.50 lakhs paid to his father's sisters and daughters should be deducted from the sale consideration as these payments were necessary to avoid potential litigation. The CIT(A) disallowed this claim, noting that the sisters had released their rights in the property in 1997, and their names were not on the revenue records at the time of sale. The Tribunal upheld this view, stating that the payments were not required to be incurred wholly and exclusively for the transfer of the property.Conclusion:- Partly Allowed:The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, granting deductions for the investment in the name of the wife and directing further examination of the advance payment claim.- Dismissed:The Tribunal dismissed the claims related to investments in the names of the sons and the payments made to father's sisters and daughters.Order:The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. The grounds related to the investment in the name of the wife and the advance payment are partly allowed, while the grounds related to investments in the names of the sons and payments to father's sisters and daughters are dismissed.
TaxTMI 