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>Tribunal upholds CIT(A)'s decision on deductions for foreign investments</h1> <h3>The ACIT, (International Taxation), Chandigarh Versus Sh. Manjit Singh Baidwan</h3> The ACIT, (International Taxation), Chandigarh Versus Sh. Manjit Singh Baidwan - TMI Issues:1. Disallowance of exemption/deduction claimed by the assessee u/s. 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Interpretation of the provisions of section 54 for investment outside India.Analysis:1. The Revenue filed an appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2013-14, where the assessee's total income was determined at a higher amount by the Assessing Officer due to disallowance of exemption/deduction claimed u/s. 54 of the Act. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal and restricted the deduction to 50% of the investment made in residential property. The Revenue challenged this decision before the Tribunal.2. The main issue raised by the Revenue was whether the claim of the assessee to get the benefit of deduction u/s. 54 for investment outside India should be allowed. The Revenue argued that the intention of the legislature behind section 54 was to grant benefits for investment in residential houses in India. The Departmental Representative contended that since the assessee purchased a residential house in New Zealand with the sale proceeds from a property in India, the claim u/s. 54 should be rejected.3. The counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, supported the CIT(A)'s order, citing judgments of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) allowed the deductions u/s. 54 based on the non-retrospective application of the amended provisions, which were made applicable from 01.04.2015. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and referred to previous decisions supporting the allowance of deductions for investments made outside India before the amendment.4. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that since the findings were based on judgments of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and the coordinate Bench, there was no reason to interfere. The Tribunal concluded that there was no merit in the Revenue's appeal and dismissed it accordingly.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to allow deductions u/s. 54 for investments made outside India based on the non-retrospective application of the amended provisions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
