TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1033
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the given facts and circumstances of the case. For this, the Revenue has raised various grounds which are argumentative and exhaustive and hence, will be covered in the decision. 3. Brief facts are that the Assessing Officer completed assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act and disallowed the claim of deduction under Section 54F of the Act at Rs. 48,26,66,960/-. The facts relating to capital gain are that the assessee sold shares of M/s FCM Travel Solutions Pvt.Ltd. to M/s Flight Centre Mauritius for a total consideration of Rs. 53,14,40,275/-. The assessee worked out the long term capital gain at Rs. 49,33,50,775/-. The assessee claimed deduction under Section 54 of the Act for an amount of Rs. 8,46,76,000/- against purchase of land and Rs. 39,79,90,960/- against the building construction. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish the documentary evidence regarding the payment against the investment in land and building, completion certificate of building and no objection certificate from the civil authorities. The assessee only filed the valuation report prepared by M/s S.K. Miglani and Co., the valuer which was not accepted by the Assessing Officer regarding the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cient opportunity is provided by the appellant. In the remand report, AO has stated that in the computation of Income Appellant has claimed deduction u/s 54 and reduced the claim of investment made in land and building amounting to Rs. 48,26,66,960/- from the LTCG not from the sale proceeds. The long term capital gain had accrued to the appellant on account of sale of shares hence the appellant is not entitled to claim deduction u/s 54. Further appellant is not entitled to claim deduction, as he failed to furnish documentary evidences like completion certificate from authority, copy of electricity bill etc. to substantiate his claim that construction was completed within three years of the sale of shares on 26.04.2010. The AO has also stated that appellant failed to produce original bills for verification and out of total claim of expenditure of Rs. 39,79,94,048/- on the construction the appellant has claimed making payment of Rs. 20,35,50,000/- i.e. more than 50% to a labour contractor. The appellant has not filed the bills nor the details of labour contractor even in the additional evidences. Thus AO has calculated the deduction at Rs. 44,80,73,151/- u/s 54F considering the above....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o sale the shares of an Indian company. The services of Luthra and Luthra were obtained from the sale of shares. The appellant has enclosed the copies of the bills in support of its contentions. 6.5 The appellant has furnished the copy of purchase deed and it is observed that appellant has purchased the property by agreement to sale executed on 15.09.2010. The appellant has also filed the possession letter on paper book page no.239 according to that appellant has taken over the possession of the vacant plot on 2nd April, 2010. The appellant has furnished the complete detail of the expenses alongwith bills and vouchers and it is observed that payments were made through banking channel by cheque. The last payment was made for the construction of building on 03.03.2011. The objection of the AO that building could not be constructed within the period of six months without any basis as AO has not carried out any enquiry to verify the construction of the building and occupation of the new residential house by the appellant. The appellant residing in the said residential house i.e. B- 31, Ansal Vilas Satbari, Chhatarpur, New Delhi. The appellant has brought on record that through....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asset, within a period of three years after the date of transfer of the original asset; and (b) the income from such residential house, other than the one residential house owned on the date of transfer of the original asset, is chargeable under the head "Income from house property".] 6.6 As per the provisions of section 54F, deduction is allowable if investments is made in a residential house before one year from the transfer long term capital asset or two years from the transfer of long term capital asset or two years from the transfer of asset or construct a house within three years from the transfer of the asset. If the cost of new asset is not less than the net consideration in respect of original asset the whole of such capital gain shall not be charged u/s 45. The appellant has sold the shares on 15.01.2010 and made investment in the purchase of the land and construction of the residential house within the period of three years and last payment towards construction of the building was made on 03.03.2011. The only requirement under the provision is that the proceeds of capital gain must be invested by the appellant in the construction of a residential house.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee, an individual, sold his shares of FCM Travel Solutions (India) Ltd. to Flight Centre (Mauritius) Ltd. and invested the proceeds in constructing a residential house by claiming deduction under Section 54F of the Act. The assessee sold his shares in FCM Travel Solutions (India) Ltd. for a sum of Rs. 53,14,40,275/- on 27th April, 2010, which is supported by settlement agreement dated 15th January, 2010 which is enclosed at pages 29 to 47 of the paper book. The assessee invested the sale proceeds of shares in land and construction of property at D-31, Ansal Villas, Satbari, Chattarpur, New Delhi by investing a sum of Rs. 8,46,76,000/- towards purchase of land and a sum of Rs. 39,79,90,960/- towards construction of the house. The assessee, to support this claim, submitted bank statement vide reply dated 10th January, 2014 and also submitted ledger accounts of land and building vide reply dated 25th February, 2014 before the Assessing Officer. The assessee made this claim under Section 54F of the Act which was denied by the Assessing Officer for the reason that the assessee failed to file copy of purchase deed and documentary evidences of the expenses incurred on the construct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otherwise, assessee is able to prove that the claim is bona-fide and assessee satisfies all the conditions prescribed under Section 54F of the Act. We noted that documentary evidences prove that the house was completed by 31st March, 2011 as the assessee made all payments to builders, contractors and material suppliers as evidenced by bank statement up to 31st March, 2011. We also noted from the details submitted by the assessee i.e., break-up of bills, invoices and supporting documents including the names of contractors and material suppliers to substantiate the claim of construction and the same was completed within that assessment year. In view of the above, we are of the view that the assessee is able to prove the entire investment and the building was completed within the stipulated period as per Section 54F of the Act. As regards the issue of learned CIT(A) allowing the claim of deduction under Section 54F of the Act on the payment of Rs. 1,75,32,143/- made to Luthra and Luthra as expenditure incurred on transfer of shares, which was made pursuant to settlement process and not transfer of shares, we noted that the supporting documents clearly prove that the addition was made ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roof of address of the said buyer. (c) Transfer Registration Certificate issued by the Transport Department, MLO, Govt. of Delhi, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi clearly evidencing that the title in the said car has been transferred. 10. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted before us the delivery receipt dated 20th October, 2010, address proof of Raheja Continental in the shape of MTNL bill dated 8th June, 2011 and Form 29 and 30 i.e., notice of transfer and application for transfer of ownership dated 20th March, 2014. The assessee also submitted copy of car registration in the name of Raheja Continental, which is enclosed in assessee's paper book page 147. It was contended that assessee sold his Audi Q7 car to Raheja Continental for a sum of Rs. 26 lakhs and deposited the sale proceeds in cash in his savings bank account. Learned Counsel explained that the Assessing Officer as well as learned CIT(A) both were confused by the name Shri Sumit Jolly, who facilitated the sale as an agent and arranged the buyer but, he was neither the purchaser nor involved in the payment. Learned Counsel for the assessee further argued that Shri Sumit Jolly, being an agent, was only invo....