TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (7) TMI 806
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... addition made by the learned AO. (2) That the learned CIT(A), while passing her appellate order, has not properly considered the documentary evidence, judgments and Departmental circulars." 3. The brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration the assessee had sold her agricultural land at village Bihsanpura, District Mohali for Rs. 1.50 crores on 17th April, 2006. The assessee had claimed deduction under s. 54F of the IT Act amounting to Rs. 1,41,56,332. The assessee had claimed to have purchased the residential plot No. K-96, South City-1, Gurgaon, out of the said sale consideration. In the return of income it was claimed by the assessee that the construction of the house would start immediately after sanction of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ased or built. The CIT(A) upheld the order of AO. Reliance placed by the assessee on Mrs. Seetha Subramanian v. Asstt. CIT [1996] 56 TTJ (Mad) 417 / 59 ITD 94 was held to be distinguishable as the house was more or less complete except some finishing work in the facts of the case before Madras Bench of Tribunal. 5. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A) and the issue raised is against the denial of deduction claimed under s. 54F of the Act. The learned Authorised Representative for the assessee pointed out that the assessee had after purchasing the land, invested Rs. 10,75,000 on construction of the building up to 25th March, 2009. The property was constructed up to ground floor roof level and construction was still going on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n was started after sanction of building plans and till 25th March, 2009 it had constructed up to ground floor roof level. The house construction was in progress and the exemption was claimed as the assessee had invested the whole of sale consideration of the land in the purchase of the plot itself. The construction of house was started thereafter. The claim of the assessee is that it is not compulsory that the construction should have been completed within the period of three years. However the Revenue authorities had denied the exemption under s. 54F of the Act as the assessee had failed to complete the construction within the said period of three years. 7. Sec. 54F(1) of the Act provides as under : "54. (1) Subject to the provisions of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the purpose of computing in respect of the new asset any capital gain arising from its transfer within a period of three years of its purchase or construction, as the case may be, the cost shall be reduced by the amount of the capital gain." [Section quoted is s. 54 and not s. 54F - Ed.] 8. Under the provisions of s. 54F of the Act, the requirement is that where capital gain arises on the transfer of any asset, not being a residential house, the assessee can take the benefit of exemption of the said capital gains, provided the assessee has within a period of one year before or two years after the date of transfer purchased a residential house or within a period of three years after that day constructed a residential house. The provisions ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e amount a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs, i.e., the amount admittedly deposited in the notified bank account, was to be added and the said total sum allowed as deduction under s. 54. The proviso to sub-s. (2) of s. 54 was to be applied in the previous year in which the period of 3 years from the date of transfer of original asset expired to the amount deposited in the bank account and not utilized for construction of the new asset. The question of application of proviso does not arise in the year under appeal. The AO is directed to recomput and allow deduction under s. 54 as directed above." 10. In Smt. Shashi Varma v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 106 (MP), relied upon by the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee it was held that while allowing e....