TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 436
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igarh for a consideration of Rs. 3,85,00,000/- vide sale deed dated 14.01.2015. The assessee being 1/5th shareholder received Rs. 77,00,000/- from the said land sale. The assessee claimed exemption on capital gain from the land deal in the return of income treating the land as agricultural land. The AO, therefore, asked the assessee to explain as to why the land should not be treated as capital asset and capital gain tax charged on the capital gain. It was submitted by the assessee that the land was an agricultural land and does not fall within the meaning of capital asset defined u/s 2(14)(iii)(b) of the I.T. Act. However, the AO rejected the said explanation on the ground that the land in question is 8 kms from the bus stand, hospital and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the case, the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is bad both in eyes of law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is not a speaking order as per section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the addition made by Ld. AO by holding that the agricultural land sold by assessee at Amarpur Kondala Tehsil of Aligarh district, Uttar Pradesh is a capital asset hence liable to capital gain tax. 4. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in disallowing the additional claim of the assessee u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as fact in passing the order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion u/s 54F of the Act cannot be denied to the assessee. 6. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora reported in 342 ITR 38 he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court has held that where the assessee has included the name of his wife and the property has been purchased jointly in the names of the assessee and his wife it would not make any difference and the conditions stipulated in section 54F stand fulfilled. 7. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. V. Natarajan reported in 287 ITR 271, he submitted that where the house was purchased in the name of the assessee's wife deduction u/s 54F is to be allowed. Referring to the decision of Hon'bl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....various decisions including the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323 and the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. (2008) reported in 306 ITR 42. It has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. (supra) that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) has made it clear that the decision was limited to the power of the assessing authority to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise then by a revised return and did not impinge on the powers of the Tribunal. It has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that there was no prohibition on the powers of the Tribunal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a High Court in the case of DIT vs. Mrs. Jennifer Bhide reported in 349 ITR 80 has held that where the entire consideration has flown from her bank account, merely because either in the sale deed or in the bond, her husband's name is also mentioned, the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of deduction u/s 54 and 54EC of the Act. The various other decisions relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee also supports his case to the proposition that deduction u/s 54F should not be disallowed, merely because the property has been purchased in the name of the wife of the assessee when the consideration for the purchases has flown from the sale proceeds of the capital asset. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that ....