2007 (5) TMI 148

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated December 30, 1992, directing the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee deduction under section 54B read with section 54H on account of the agricultural land purchased up to December 31, 1991, for Rs. 6,80,808 whereas deduction under section 54B has been erroneously considered and allowed by the Assessing Officer to the extent of Rs. 3,74,960 in his set aside assessment order dated October 21, 1991, passed under section 143(3)/251 of the Act whereas the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) vide his order dated June 24, 1991, has given no such direction to the Assessing Offi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....978. Its benefit could not have been extended in respect of capital gains which arose during the assessment year 1977-78. He further submitted that the Tribunal erred in law in granting the benefits of the aforesaid provisions. 7 Shri V. K. Rastogi, learned counsel on the other hand, submitted that the respondent has received initial compensation only on September 5, 1984, and, therefore, capital gains, if any, arose during the previous year, relevant to the assessment year 1985-86. The respondents having invested amount within six months as contemplated under section 54E of the Act, the Tribunal had rightly allowed the benefit. He has relied upon the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of S. Gopal Reddy v. CIT [1990] 1....