Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, for computing deduction under section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee is entitled to claim the entire amount deposited in the Capital Gains Account Scheme as cost of the new asset for deduction purposes, or only a proportionate deduction computed by applying the statutory formula in section 54F(1).
Analysis: Section 54F prescribes that the deduction equals the capital gain multiplied by the ratio of the cost of the new asset to the net consideration; section 54F(4) permits deposit in the Capital Gains Account Scheme to preserve eligibility for exemption but does not alter the computation method under section 54F(1). The figures in dispute are undisputed: net consideration, capital gain, actual construction expenditure and amount deposited in the Capital Gains Account Scheme. The disputed excess arises from arithmetic application of the statutory formula. The assessee produced no material to show that the deposit in the Capital Gains Account Scheme had been actually utilized or irrevocably committed to construction such that the entire claimed amount would form part of the cost of the new asset for computation purposes. Relevant authorities uphold that preservation of exemption by deposit does not waive the requirement to compute the deduction by the formula when the entire net consideration is not invested.
Conclusion: The deduction must be computed by applying the statutory formula in section 54F(1); the deposit in the Capital Gains Account Scheme preserves eligibility but does not automatically entitle the assessee to the entire claimed amount. The proportionate disallowance of Rs. 3,91,661/- is justified and the appeal is dismissed.