TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 1084
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."1.Whether in fact and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is correct in denying the deduction of Rs. 50,00,000 u/s 54EC out of Total Investment of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. (a) Where assessee has made investment of Rs. 50,00,000/- each in two financial years but within six months of sale of original asset. (b) Where the assessee has made investment within six months from the end of the month in which original asset was sold. (c) Whether assessing officer is correct in treating the date of sale of original asset on 6th October 2009, instead of 101h October, 2009 on the facts of the case and calculating the period of six months for investment in long term specified assets accordingly. 2. Whether in fact and in law th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x months. As per the assessee, the date of transfer of asset was on 10.10.2009 whereas, as per the AO the date of transfer of asset was on 06.10.2009. During the course of hearing, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that there were two agreements, one pertaining to the assessee and other for the buyer, which lead to confusion with regard to dates. On the other hand, the AO held that the actual date of agreement was on 06.10.2009 only but subsequent agreement dated 10.10.2009 has been created just to get benefit of deduction u/s 54EC. 3.1. We have gone through the orders of the lower authorities and also gone through the copies of agreements placed before us. It is noted that there is a confusion with regard to the dates, which hav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the transfer of the asset has taken place. 3.2. Further the connected issues raised in this regard was whether the assessee can be allowed the investment in respect of 50 lakhs in one financial year and the second investment in next financial year but within the stipulated period of six months. It was stated that this issue is in favour of the assessee in view of various judgments of the Tribunal. The reliance in this regard has been placed on the following judgments: i. Shri Aspi Ginwala v. ACIT (ITA No.3226/Ahd/2011 dated 30th March 2012.) (Ahmadabad-Trib.) ii. Mrs. Lilavati M. Sayani v. ITO 49 taxmann.com 579 (Mumbai-Trib.) 3.3. Per contra Ld. DR was not able to point out any contrary judgment. 3.4. We have gone through t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. In view of above, it is hereby held that the assessee is entitled for exemption of Rs. 1 crore as six months' period for investment in eligible investments involved is two financial years." 3.5. Similarly, the same view has been taken by the coordinate bench in the case of Mrs. Lilavati M. Sayani (supra). Thus, respectfully following these judgment and in absence of any contrary judgment having been brought before us, we allow the aggregate claim of the assessee for Rs. 1 crore subject to the decision to be taken by the AO in terms of issue sent back to the file of AO for verification of dates. 4. Ground No.2: In this ground, the assessee had raised an issue that the AO had wrongly denied the benefit of deduction u/s 54F for Rs. 86....