A construction in inhabitable position cannot be equated with a residential house. If a person cannot live in a premises, then such premises cannot be considered as a residential house. In our opinion, investment in the construction would be complete as a house only when such house becomes habitable.
Condition precedent for claiming benefit u/s 54F is the capital gain realized from the sale of capital asset should have been parted by the assessee and invested either in purchasing a residential house or in constructing a residential house.
Exemption u/s. 54F has been granted to the assessee with a view to encourage construction of one residential house. The construction/purchase of a house other than one residential house is not covered by section 54F of the Act.
Since there is no monetary consideration involved in transferring the manufacturing division with all its assets and liabilities under scheme of amalgamation. it cannot be considered to be a slump sale within the meaning ascribed under section 2(42C)
Assessee, owner of a residential property, entered into a development agreement for construction of flats with a developer. Under agreement, assessee received 7 flats towards his share. He claimed exemption u/s 54F on the entire amount of capital gain.
In the grounds of appeal before the CIT(A) at ground No. 3 the assessee himself has submitted that the learned AO should have appreciated that during the previous year relevant to the AY 2008-09 the amount of Rs. 60 lakhs paid by the assessee company for deduction of Rs. 15 lakhs in question qualifies for inclusion under the head ‘intangible asset’ as provided u/s 32(1)(ii) and is entitled to a depreciation @ 25% on intangible assets. Hence, we direct the AO to allow depreciation on goodwill at 25% on the intangible assets and with respect to furniture and fittings depreciation to be allowed at 10% since they fall under block of assets as furniture and fittings. The assessee is directed to give bifurcation of good will and furniture and fittings.
This document was seized from the business premises of D. Nagarjuna Rao in course of action u/s 132 of the Act against him. In the impugned assessment order the AO has also observed that the said D. Nagarjuna Rao had admitted that entries in the seized documents were made by him in his own handwriting.
In our opinion, the amount representing 2118.84 is towards investment in share capital of the subsidiaries outside India as the transactions are not in the nature of transactions referred to section 92-B of the IT Act and the transfer pricing provisions are not applicable as there is no income.
Relying on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal we exclude the Giant Companies namely Wipro and Infosys which are taken as comparables as turnovers of these companies are multiple number of times higher compared to that of the assessee, we hold that the DRO erred in considering their PLI to arrive at the arithmetic mean.
Exemption claimed by the assessee under S.54 of the Act cannot be denied on the ground that the assessee has not utilised the sale consideration received from the sale of flats itself, in purchasing the plot. Law is well settled by the judicial precedents that investment in purchase of pot for construction of house would entitle an assessee to claim exemption u/s.54 or 54F of the Act. Board’s circular No.667 dated 18.10.1993 also says so.
