2018 (3) TMI 2021

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Parin Shah Adv. ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the Revenue is preferred against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad dated 13.06.2016 pertaining to A.Y. 2013-14. 2. The only grievance of the revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 50 lacs made on account of excess claim of deduction u/s. 54EC of the Act. 3. During the course of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... years and therefore not applicable for the year under consideration. 6. Drawing support from various judicial decisions, the ld. CIT(A) directed the A.O. to allow the claim of deduction in respect of investment in bonds to the tune of Rs. 50 lacs. 7. Aggrieved by this, the revenue is before us. The ld. D.R. could not bring any factual or legal error in the findings of the ld. CIT(A). The Co-ord....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....riod of 6 months. The Assessing Officer & CIT(A) rejected the claim for exemption of Rs. 50 lakhs in respect of the NHAI bonds on the ground that (i) it exceeded the monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs prescribed in section 54EC ad (ii) it was made beyond the time limit of 6 months. On appeal to the Tribunal, held allowing the appeal: (i) The Proviso to section 54EC provides that the investment made ....