TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 55
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sideration:- "2.1 Whether Ld. ITAT has erred in not considering the observation made by Ld. AO in disallowing the deduction claimed by the assessee of section 54 of IT Act, 1961? 2.2 Whether Ld. ITAT has also erred in considering the subsequent part payment of loan taken from ICICI for purpose of the said residential house, paid during the previous year, as allowable for exemption u/s 54, even though the loan amount is applied for much earlier and for the based on the Apartment buyer agreement dated 18/02/2016 i.e. more than one year before the date of sale of the property in question, for which exemption is being claimed? 2.3 Whether Ld. ITAT has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,04,38,315/- on account of exemption u/s. 54 of the Act treating the purchase of the under construction flat as flat Construction by the assessee, and not considering the facts that the assessee has entered into Apartment buyer agreement for purchase of under construction property on 18.02.2016, thereby making it a purchase of house property? 2.4 Whether without prejudice to the point above, the Ld. ITAT has erred in considering the construction/purchase of the hou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l flat for finishing by the buyers. The possession was granted on March 30, 2013. The lower tax authorities after examining the terms of the agreement, the occupation certificate, and the other letters-offer to finalize the details of interiors, have come to a conclusion that the assessee had booked a semi-furnished flat with the builder, namely, DLF Universal Ltd. in the residential group housing complex named as Magnolias DLF Golf Links. Accordingly, the assessee had a window of three years period from December 21, 2011 till December 21, 2014 to construct a house property, calculated from the date of transfer of the original asset. The appellant has claimed deduction on the amount invested till the due date of filing of return under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act. In this factual background, we do not find any cogent ground to hold that the respondents do not fulfil the conditions laid down under section 54(1) of the Act so as to deny the benefit of the said provision. The apprehension expressed by the learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue is not borne from the facts on record. The provision in question is a beneficial provision for the assessees, who replace the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....construed strictly either because of legislative intention or on economic justification of inequitable burden of progressive approach of fiscal provisions intended to augment State revenue. But once exception or exemption becomes applicable no rule or principle requires it to be construed strictly. Truly speaking, liberal and strict construction of an exemption provision is to be invoked at different stages of interpreting it. When the question is whether a subject falls in the notification or in the exemption clause then it being in the nature of exception is to be construed strictly and against the subject but once ambiguity or doubt about applicability is lifted and the subject falls in the notification then full play should be given to it and it calls for a wider and liberal construction. (See Union of India v. Wood Papers Ltd. (1990) 4 SCC 256 ; [1990] SCC (Tax) 422 and Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [1992] Supp (1) SCC 21 to which reference has been made earlier.)" 22. In G. P. Ceramics (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Trade Tax (2009) 2 SCC 90, this court has held : (SCC pages 101-02, para 29) 29. It is now a w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....33 of 2014-(2015) 370 ITR 579 (Mad), to which one of us-R. Sudhakar J. is a party). In the said decision, this court held as under (page 583): "The key issue that arises for consideration is whether the first proviso to section 54EC(1) of the Act would restrict the benefit of investment of capital gains in bonds to that financial year during which the property was sold or it applies to any financial year during the six months period. For better understanding of the issue, it would be apposite to refer to section 54EC(1) of the Act, which reads as under: "54EC. Capital gain not to be charged on investment in certain bonds.-(1) Where the capital gain arises from the transfer of a long- term capital asset (the capital asset so transferred being hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset) and the assessee has, at any time within a period of six months after the date of such transfer, invested the whole or any part of capital gains in the long-term specified asset, the capital gain shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section, that is to say,- (a) if the cost of the long-term specified asset is not less than ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es on Clauses-Finance (No. 2) Bill, 2014: Clause 23 of the Bill seeks to amend section 54EC of the Income- tax Act relating to capital gain not to be charged on investment in certain bonds. The existing provisions contained in sub-section (1) of section 54EC provide that where capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset and the assessee has within a period of six months invested the whole or part of capital gains in the long-term specified asset, the proportionate capital gains so invested in the long-term specified asset out of total capital gains shall not be charged to tax. The proviso to the said sub-section provides that the investment made in the long-term specified asset during any financial year shall not exceed fifty lakhs rupees. It is proposed to insert a proviso below first proviso in said sub- section (1) so as to provide that the investment made by an assessee in the long-term specified asset, from capital gains arising from transfer of one or more original assets, during the financial year in which the original asset or assets are transferred and in the subsequent financial year does not exceed fifty lakh rupees. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be that this amendment should be for the assessment year 2015-2016 to avoid unwanted litigations of the previous years. Even otherwise, we do not wish to read anything more into the first proviso to section 54EC(1) of the Act, as it stood in relation to the assessees. In any event, from a reading of section 54EC(1) and the first proviso, it is clear that the time limit for investment is six months from the date of transfer and even if such investment falls under two financial years, the benefit claimed by the assessee cannot be denied. It would have made a difference, if the restriction on the investment in bonds to Rs. 50,00,000 is incorporated in section 54EC(1) of the Act itself. However, the ambiguity has been removed by the Legislature with effect from April 1, 2015, in relation to the assessment year 2015- 16 and the subsequent years. For the foregoing reasons, we find no infirmity in the orders passed by the Tribunal warranting interference by this court. The substantial questions of law are answered against the Revenue and these appeals are dismissed.' (emphasis supplied) The decision of this court in Areva T and D India Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (201....