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>Assessee wins appeal on Section 54B claim, purchase in wife's name funded by Assessee upheld.</h1> <h3>Shri Vasudev Somabhai Vankar Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward –7 (1) (5), Ahmedabad.</h3> Shri Vasudev Somabhai Vankar Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward –7 (1) (5), Ahmedabad. - TMI Issues involved:The appeal against the order passed by CIT(A)-7, Ahmedabad for the Assessment Year 2010-11 is filed by the Assessee.Grounds of Appeal:1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the Assessing Officer's computation of total income, which differed from the income declared by the Appellant.2. Disallowance of Rs.46,23,198 under section 54B of the I.T. Act, 1961 was made by the Assessing Officer, contested by the Assessee.3. The Commissioner held that the appellant is not entitled to claim deduction under section 54B of the Act, leading to a direction to withdraw the deduction given by the AO.4. The Commissioner exceeded jurisdiction by issuing directions on unraised issues.5. Allegation of indirectly enhancing assessment without statutory notice under section 251(2) of the Act.6. Failure to consider the affidavit of legal heirs of the sellers.7. Direction to the AO to inform the Sub-registrars of Government of Gujarat about the sale and purchase of agricultural lands.8. Alternative claim that the amount should be treated as a capital receipt or cash credits with explained sources.Judgment Details:The case was reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Assessing Officer disallowed Rs.46,23,198 claimed under Section 54B. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and withdrew the deduction granted by the AO. The Assessee sold agricultural land and reinvested in land owned by the wife, leading to the dispute. The Ld. AR argued for the Assessee, highlighting the sale deed details and the purchase in the wife's name. The Ld. DR supported the Assessing Officer's decision. The Tribunal found the Assessee's claim justifiable as the purchase was in the wife's name, with funds provided by the Assessee. The CIT(A) erred in denying the claim, and the appeal of the Assessee was allowed.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal, emphasizing the validity of the claim under Section 54B due to the purchase being in the wife's name with funds from the Assessee.
TaxTMI 