Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2011 (9) TMI 1136

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d 17.12.2008. 2. The only issue in this appeal of the assessee is against the order of CIT(A) in not allowing deduction u/s. 54F of the Act. For this, the assessee has raised following two effective grounds: "2. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) should have directed the A.O. to allow exemption in respect of the Investment of Rs. 3,04,400/-, Rs. 10,00,000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/- which was eligible for exemption u/s. 54F of the I. T. Act, 1961. 3. For that the Ld. A.O. erred in denying the exemption u/s. 54F when the capital fain earned by the assessee was duly invested for the purpose of acquisition of the residential houses within the time allowed under the law." 3. Brief facts are that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nue contended before us that so long as the assessee has no case that the sale consideration received by him while disposing of his property on 28th October, 1983 was utilised for the purpose of acquiring the house property at Calicut, the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of s. 54. The learned counsel sought to place reliance on three decisions, namely, Stanes Motors (South India) Ltd. vs. CIT (1975) 100 ITR 341 (Mad) : TC 16R.144, CIT vs. Samnugger Jute Factory Co. Ltd. (1953) 24 ITR 265 (Cal) : TC 26R.254 and Basant Kumar Aditya Vikram Birla vs. CIT (1968) 70 ITR 657 (Cal) : TC 26R.254, in support of his contention. We do not find any merit in the above contention raised by the Revenue. A mere reading of s. 54 would make it clear t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of its purchase or construction, as the case may be, the cost shall be nil; or (ii) if the amount of the capital gain is equal to or less than the cost of the new asset, the capital gain shall not be charged under s. 45 and for 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." The assessee has to construct or purchase a house property for his own residence in order to get the benefit of s. 54. The wording of the section itself would make it clear that the law does not insist that the sale consideration obtained by the assessee itself should....