2013 (1) TMI 906

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... In this appeal by the revenue, the following question of law has been proposed for our consideration. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in confirming the order of CIT(A) allowing the assessee's claim of exemption u/s 54F of the Act even though the Juhu Bungalow which the Assessee had purchased as co-owner had been demolished much befor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the respondent had demolished the bungalow within 3 years of its purchase, the same would amount to transfer and would be hit by Section 54F(3) of the Act. Consequently, in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration the capital gain tax would be payable on the amounts not charged due to the benefit availed of Section 54F of the Act as held by the assessing officer in hi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt of any right' in Section 2(47) of the Act, does not include an extinguishment of right on account of destruction. It has to be an extinguishment of right on account of transfer. Thus, a destruction of assets when not on account of any transfer would not be hit by Section 54F (3) of the Act. 5 Counsel for the revenue seeks to distinguish the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of ....