This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Section 54 places thrust on investment & not on completion
Case Law Details
- Case Name
- Smt. Rajneet Sandhu Vs DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh)
- Appeal Number
- Only available for paid members
- Date of Judgement/Order
- Only available for paid members
- Courts
- All ITAT, ITAT Chandigarh
Upgrade to Basic or Premium to download.
Already Upgraded? Log in.
Smt. Rajneet Sandhu vs. DCIT (2010) 133 TTJ 0064 (Chandigarh): In this case the construction of the house was not completed within the prescribed period. It was held that section 54F does not prescribe that the residential house should be completed within the prescribed period and benefit under s. 54F was allowed. It was held that thrust was on investment and not on completion.
The brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration the assessee had sold her agriculture land at village Bihsanpura, District Mohali for 1.50 crore on 17.4.2006. The assessee had claimed deductio...
Author Info
IMPROMPTU
The view taken, though not for the first time is, to the effect that the prescribed time limit of 2 / 3 years ‘FOR’ ‘purchase’ / ‘construction’ of a new asset is not to be construed strictly or rigidly, or interpreted in a narrow sense. That is the right or better view should necessary regard be had to the setting /the whole context, with adequate emphasis / stress placed on the crucial word “FOR”. Even if considered from a different angle, constructing and completing a new independent house, or purchasing a Flat/Apartment, within time as planned, is not left to the investor- taxpayer; but is subject to or circumscribed by several ifs and buts, mostly resting with the promoter/seller.
As per the scheme of the enactment itself, – in particular, in section 54 OR section 154 / 155 of IT Act, there is no provision hence by necessary implication not envisaged/intended to tax the amount of capital gains or to the extent it has been ‘utilised’ for the purchase or construction. A close reading and understanding of sub-section (2) rw the Proviso thereto lends support.
In the context, it may be noted,, the recent SC judgment in Sanjeev Lal v CIT is a case on the point, to support the identical proposition that section 54 requires to be interpreted by adopting a common sense reasoning, founded on principles of natural justice and a liberal judicial approach. This aspect has been briefly touched upon in the published article, -(2014) 226 Taxman 143- 150/151.
Over to tax experts in active practice for an in-depth deliberation.