Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : ACIT Vs. Akshya Sobti (ITAT Delhi)
Appeal Number : ITA No. 5900/DEL/2015
Date of Judgement/Order : 10/05/2019
Related Assessment Year : 2012-13
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

ACIT Vs. Akshya Sobti (ITAT Delhi)

In the instant case, since the assessee entered into an agreement for construction of a bare shell of a house by periodic payment of installments and he had to carry the internal fit-outs to make it live­able as per Annexure-V of the agreement with the Builder Company, within Six months from the date of certificate of occupation from the competent Authorities, this is to be treated as the case of construction. Further, the construction has been completed within three years of the sale of original asset, which is accepted by the Assessing Officer, the relief under section 54 is genuinely claimed by him and therefore, disallowance made under section 54 amounting to Rs. 4,00,97,217/- needs to be deleted. It is it is clear that the facts of the present case that it was a case of construction of flat and not purchase of flat as held by the AO. Since, the case pertains to construction, benefit of section 54 of the Act are available to assessee. In view of above, the booking of bare shell of a flat is a construction of house property and not purchase, therefore, the date of completion of construction is to be looked into which is as per provision of section 54 of the I.T. Act., therefore, the Ld. CIT(A), has rightly directed the AO to allow benefit to the assessee as claimed u/s.54 of the I.T. Act, which does not require any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the action of the ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and reject the ground raised by the Revenue.

Addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- on account of exemption u/s. 54EC of the Act without considering the date of purchase of REC bonds

“In any event, from a reading of Section 54EC(1) and the first proviso, it is clear that the time limit for investment is six months from the date of transfer and even if such investment falls under two financial years, the benefit claimed by the appellant cannot be denied. It would have made a difference, if the restriction on the investment in bonds to Rs.50,00,000/- is incorporated in Section 54EC(1) of the Act itself. However, the ambiguity has been removed by the legislature with effect from 1.4.2015 in relation to the assessment year 2015-16 and the subsequent years.

FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031