Case Law Details
Case Name : Mrs. Prema P. Shah Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Related Assessment Year : 1993-94
Courts :
All ITAT ITAT Mumbai
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal – Mumbai
Mrs. Prema P. Shah vs Income-Tax Officer
Date of Pronouncement: 29 November, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2006 100 ITD 60 Mum, 2006 282 ITR 211 Mum, (2006) 101 TTJ Mum 849
Bench: K Thangal, Vice-, D Srivastava
ORDER
K.P.T. Thangal, Vice President
1. These appeals are by the assessees for the assessment year 1993-94.
2. I.T.A. No. 2707/Mumbai of 1997 : The interesting question before us is whether the exemption contemplated under Section 54(1) could be extended to a property purchased in a foreign country after selling the property s...
This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
The reported itat order is almost a decade old. It may be worthwhile
ascertaining whether that was taken up further, and if so, the status /
outcome thereof.
Wprt the contents of para. 12, to say the least, the validity or otherwise of relevance of the SC ruling in Podar Cement case relied on requires a further study. For, the issue therein related to ‘house property’ income; governed by, unlike in respect of ‘capital gains’, the ‘deeming’ provisions .
Attention may also be drawn to the aspects highlighted in the published critique, based on an intimate study of that SC case.
KEY NOTE: The above referred view taken by the itat, as ought to have
been noted, cannot have, in any case, any validity or hold good, and be
of avail to taxpayer, for and from the assessment year 2015-16. Tat is
so, by reason /in consequence of the amendment of the law by the Finance
(No.2) Act, 2014. For a discussion thereof, it is recommended to, read
the published write-up ( (2014) 226 TAXMAN 143-151)
the very fact that Section 54 was amended with effect from 01-04-2015 providing for purchase or construction of a residential house in India, supports the view that earlier to that date, to claim exemption the new house could have been anywhere else
The reported itat order is almost a decade old. It may be worthwhile
ascertaining whether that was taken up further, and if so, the status /
outcome thereof.
Wprt the contents of para. 12, to say the least, the validity or otherwise of relevance of the SC ruling in Podar Cement case relied on requires a further study. For, the issue therein related to ‘house property’ income; governed by, unlike in respect of ‘capital gains’, the ‘deeming’ provisions .
Attention may also have to be pointedly drawn to the aspects highlighted in the published critique, based on an intimate study, of that SC case.