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>Section 54B deduction for agricultural land investment denied when purchase made in spouse's name instead of assessee's own name</h1> <h3>Chowaram Baghel Versus The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Range-2 Raipur, The Income Tax Officer, 2 (1), Bhilai, Chhattisgarh</h3> Chowaram Baghel Versus The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Range-2 Raipur, The Income Tax Officer, 2 (1), Bhilai, Chhattisgarh - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the ITAT was justified in denying the deduction under Section 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the investment in new agricultural land was made in the name of the assessee's wife.Summary:Issue 1: Justification of ITAT's Decision on Section 54B DeductionThe core issue was whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the deduction under Section 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be allowed to the assessee since the investment in the purchase of new agricultural land was made in the name of his wife.The appellant sold agricultural land and claimed deduction under Section 54B for investments made in new agricultural lands, including those purchased in his wife's name. The CIT (A) allowed the exemption, but the ITAT annulled it, stating that the exemption could only be allowed if the investment was made in the assessee's own name.The appellant argued that Sections 54, 54B, and 54F of the IT Act are pari materia and cited precedents where deductions were allowed for property purchased in the name of a spouse. The appellant also invoked the principle that when two interpretations are possible, the one favoring the taxpayer should be preferred.The respondent countered that the term 'assessee' under Section 2(7) of the IT Act must be strictly interpreted, and the exemption cannot be extended to property purchased in the name of the assessee's wife.The court examined the statutory language of Section 54B and relevant case law, including the Supreme Court's rulings on strict interpretation of exemption provisions. The court concluded that the term 'assessee' as defined under Section 2(7) does not include the spouse, and thus, the exemption cannot be extended to investments made in the wife's name.Applying these principles, the court held that the ITAT was justified in denying the deduction under Section 54B of the IT Act, as the land was not purchased in the assessee's own name.As a result, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 