Case Law Details
Sita Jain & Ors. Vs. ACIT & Anr. (ITAT Delhi) – We have duly considered the rival contention and gone through the record carefully. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the subsequent decision has upheld grant of exemption u/s 54B in a case where land was purchased in the joint name. The ITAT had discussed this issue in the case of Smt. Saraswati Swaminathan reported in 116 ITD 234 and has observed that the object of section 54EC is to utilize the sale proceed of long term capital gain in the purchase of specified bonds.
The Tribunal has considered the scheme of such investment in paragraph 3 and thereafter upheld the allowance of exemption u!s 54EC. The third circumstance which goad us not to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A) is the letter dated 11th May, 2011 whereby REC Ltd. had given a clarification regarding joint holding of REC bonds. The corporation has pointed out that second and third holder is only for succession purpose in case of death of first holder. The cumulative setting of all these three factors persuade us not to take a different opinion than the one taken by the Ld. CIT(A). In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in this appeal of the revenue.
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI
I.T.A No. 4754/Del/10
Asst. Year – 2007-08
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
