TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 1750
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the assessee's claim of deduction u/s. 54 of I.T. Act amounting to Rs. 1,85,30,0047- ignoring the fact that for claiming u/s.54 of the I.T. Act not only the gain from the transfer of the capital asset has to be invested towards purchase/construction of a residential property, but also that residential property has to be purchased/constructed within the stipulated period mandated in the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in directing to allow deduction u/s.54 by not considering the fact that neither the construction of the said property was completed nor its possession was received by the assessee within the stipulate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mp duty + Rs. 400/- other charges). The assessing officer not allowed to include Rs. 400/- in the cost of acquisition in absence of evidence. The assessing officer disallowed the claim of exemption under section 54 holding that the agreement dated 271/11/2011 for acquisition of property is unregistered agreement. Therefore, the entire Long Term Capital Gain was brought to tax. On appeal before the CIT(A) the action of the A.O was reversed and the assessee was allowed exemption under section 54 of the Act. Hence, aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the revenue is in appeal before us. 3. We have considered the submission of the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the revenue and the ld. Authorized Representative (AR) for the assessee a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Crores. The Authorized Representative of the assessee submits that she has filed copy of allotment letter of new property/ flat from the developer on 17/06/2010. In the allotment letter the builder/developer has clearly mentioned the payment made by the assessee against the acquisition of flat, copy of agreement dated 17/11/2011, and copy of guidelines of registration of sale deed by Govt. of Maharashtra. The Ld. AR for the assessee further submits that on execution of agreement of sale on 17/11/2011 the assessee has paid 85% of total cost of new property/flat. 5. In support of the submission the AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mrs. Shakuntala Devi (389 ITR 366), decis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vide its confirmation dated 07.12.2014 confirmed this receipt of consideration of Rs. 3.26 crores. The ld. CIT(A) relying on the decision of Chandigarh Tribunal in the case of Smt. Ranjit Sandhu vs. DCIT (49 SOT 7) held that completion of construction within time limit prescribed u/s. 54 is not a condition for allowing exemption. 7. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi (389 ITR 366) held that utilization of Capital Gainin construction of residential house within a period of two years would suffice to claim exemption u/s. 54 irrespective of fact that neither sale transaction was concluded, nor registration had taken place within two years. The coordinate bench of Chandigarh Tribunal in the case of Bhavna Cuccria vs. I....