Case Law Details
Case Name : ACIT Vs Seema Sobit (ITAT Delhi)
Related Assessment Year : 2012-13
Courts :
All ITAT ITAT Delhi
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored
ACIT Vs Seema Sobit (ITAT Delhi)
Conclusion: Since the booking of bare shell of a flat was a construction of house property and not purchase, therefore, the date of completion of construction was to be looked into which was as per provision of section 54, therefore, AO was directed to allow benefit to assessee as claimed u/s. 54.
Held: Assessee declared long
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Sponsored
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
ACIT Vs Seema Sobit (ITAT Delhi)
Q
Conclusion:
Since the booking of bare shell of a flat was a construction of house property and not purchase, therefore, the date of completion of construction was to be looked into which was as per provision of section 54, therefore, AO was directed to allow benefit to assessee as claimed u/s. 54.
UQ
TEXT Of –
Acit, New Delhi vs Smt. Seema Sobti, New Delhi on … – Indian Kanoon
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/64791777/
KEY Note;
The ITAT Order covers not just one issue, as wrongly implied in the caption ,- “Booking of bare shell of flat was construction of house property and not purchase U/s. 54 ” . In fact, there was one more Issue , decided in assessee’s favour.
READ:
“4. CLAIM U/S 54EC IS ALLOWABLE
4.1. The relevant facts regarding this claim are that against the capital gains arising out of sale of the residential house on 21.12.2011, as detailed above, the Assessee purchased eligible bonds of the Rural Electrification Corporation (‘REC’) worth Rs. 50 Lakhs on 31.01.2012 vide No. 0900848, and worth Rs. 50 Lakhs on 31.05.2012 vide No. 0912416.”
This is an aspect on which the law was amended by the finance No. 2 Act of 2014; but only prospectively wef 01-04- 2015. (READ paragrphs 4.3 and 4.4 of the ITAT Order ).
Also READ the discussion of the above referred amemdment of the law (sec 54 EC) and the other related points of view
in the published Article – (2014) 226 TAXMAN pg. 143 (MAG) .
Interestingly, one such other point, covered in the Epilogue therein, is also of contextual relevance in the instant case.
Also gone into in detail in the 2 Articles –
@https://taxguru.in/author/vswami/- and, within >
9. Sec 54F- A Brain Teaser !
12. Budget 2014 – Does it really not contain retrospective amendments?
KEY Note: The suggestions offered in those Articles, on points requiring clarity , are still pending consideration. That explains why disputes and litigation continue to dogmatically persist !