TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (5) TMI 12
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2,66,82,526/-) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law: 2.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming denial of exemption of long term capital gains of Rs. 2,66,82,5267- u/s 54F of the Act although all the conditions of section 54F were complied by the appellant. 2.2 The Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the submission of your appellant that your appellant was not 'owner' of the residential houses within the meaning of sub-clause (ij of clause (a) of proviso to section 54F of the Act and consequently, erred in denying exemption of the long term capital gain referred to above. Without prejudice to the foregoing ground of appeal, the Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the submission of your appellant that the residential houses were jointly held with other person and accordingly, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Smt. P.K. Vasanthi Rangarajan (23 taxmann.com 299) cited before her; the exemption u/s 54F of Rs. 2,66,82,526/- claimed by your appellant could not have be denied." 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. The assessee declared his total income at....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was confirmed. Thus, further aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed present appeal before this Tribunal. 4. We have heard the submission of the learned authorised representative (ld.AR) of the assessee and the learned departmental representative (ld. DR) for the revenue and perused the material available on record. The Ld.AR of the assessee submits that assessee being an individual, earned long term capital gain along with his minor children Aditya and Natisha on sale of equity shares of a private limited company. The ld. AR for the assessee explained the details of asset wise LTCG on sale of equity shares and mutual funds and sale of house property. Particulars Assessee &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....LTCG 478,73,288/- B- Details of long term capital gain on sales of Mutual Funds of minors Particulars Aditya Natisha Total Sales value - Rs. 20,77,464/- 24,28,578/- 45,06,042/- Indexed cost Rs. 20,36,498/- 23,96,624/- 44,33,123/- LTCG Rs. 40,966/- 31,954/- 72,920/- Date of purchase 12.04.2010. 23.04.2010 Date of sale 05.12.2012 05.12.2012 Period of holding 2 years 2 years Benefits claimed u/s 54F (investment in CGAS) 40,966/- 31954/- 72,920/- Benefit u/s 54F disallowed 40,966/- 31,954/- 72,920/- C- LTCG on sale of house property by assessee; Particulars Juniper flat Flat 1601 Mayflower flats - 1601/1602 Total Date of purchase 15.10.2007 (AY-2008-09) 16.12.2007 (AY-2008-09) Date of occupation certificate 22.07.2009 22.07.2009 Date sale 06.12.2012 01.12.2012 Period oh holding 5 years 5 years LTCG 25,41,264/- 34,99,372/- 60,40,636/- Benefit u/s 54 claimed and allowed 25,41,264/- 34,99,372/- 60.40,636/- 5. In view of the aforesaid explai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the AO by taking view that section 64(1A) of the Act states that while computing the income of any individual , there shall included all such income accrued or arise to his minor children. It was also held that the assessee is also not entitled for the benefits of section 54F; the same cannot be extended to the minors. We have noted that the lower authorities have not disputed the date of acquisition and sale of assets, nature of asset and the period of holding, at the hand on the minors. Further, there is no dispute that the gains earned by minors were invested in CGAS. We have further noted that after the investment made by minor children u/s 54F left no chargeable capital gain which could be clubbed u/s 64(1A) in hands of assessee. 9. The coordinate bench of Kolkata Tribunal in Rajeev Goyal (supra) held that in case of clubbing of income of minors child, deduction u/s 54EC is to be allowed on minors' income from LTCG separately and only net income is to be clubbed. In Madan Lal Bassi (supra), Chandigarh bench of Tribunal also held that under section 45(1), any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset are chargeable to income-tax. Save as otherwise provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uj (HC), decision of Tribunal in Rasiklal Satra (98 ITD 335), Ashok Chouhan (176 ITD 717), Smt. Vasanti Rangarajan 23 taxmann.com 299 (Madras HC), Kapil Nagpal (63 taxmann.com 336 (Delhi HC). 12. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The Ld. DR further submits that the assessee was owner of more than one residential house and the exemption claimed u/s 54F cannot be allowed if the assessee is owner of more than one residential house as on the date of transfer of share. In support of his submission, the Ld. DR for the revenue relied upon the decision of Hyderabad Tribunal in Apsara Bhavana Sai (148 ITD 658). To support the clubbing of income of assessee with minors relied upon the decision of Yogi Aggarwal (96 ITD 288). 13. In the rejoinder submission, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the decisions relied upon by Ld. DR for the revenue in Apsara Bhavana Sai (supra) is of non-jurisdictional Tribunal, while the assessee has relied on the decision of jurisdictional Tribunal in Rasiklal Satara (supra), Ashok Chouhan (supra) and Hon'ble Madras High Court in Vasanti Rangarajan (supra), therefore, in view of the decision of Hon....