Income Tax : ITAT ruled that exemption under Section 54F cannot be denied solely due to missing bills or vouchers, emphasizing the principle of...
Income Tax : Stay updated with key changes and precautions in filing your Income Tax Return for FY 2023-24 to avoid penalties and ensure accura...
Income Tax : Discover how Section 54 & 54F exemptions extend beyond property owners to include spouses and legal heirs. Explore recent ITAT rul...
Income Tax : Understand the key differences between Section 54 and Section 54F for LTCG exemption through investment in residential property. E...
Income Tax : Explore exemptions under capital gain with sections 54, 54B, 54D, 54EC, 54F, 54G, and 54GA. Eligibility, assets, limits, and lock-...
Income Tax : Representation against Extension of time limit under section 54 to 54GB without extension of Income Tax Return due date Vidarbha I...
CA, CS, CMA, Income Tax : We have not noticed any heed being extended towards various issues and possible solutions we have proposed through those represent...
Income Tax : KSCAA has requested to Hon’ble Minister of Finance to extend various time limits under section 54 to 54GB of the Income-tax Act,...
Income Tax : All India Federation of Tax Practitioners (CZ) has requested CBDT that due date of filing return of income u/s 139(1) for all the ...
Income Tax : Direct Taxes Committee of ICAI has Request(s) for extension of various due dates under Income-tax Act, 1961 especially Tax Audit R...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad orders CIT(A) to reconsider the Section 54F exemption claim by Bhupendrabhai Punjabhai Patel after rejecting previo...
Income Tax : Summary of ITAT Raipur decision in Satish Agrawal vs. ITO. The case concerns denied exemption under Section 54F of the Income Tax ...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai states holding period for capital gains should be computed from the allotment letter date, not the sale agreement regi...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata held that loss on sale of shares on recognized stock exchange with STT paid, is eligible to be set off against the lo...
Income Tax : Read the detailed analysis of ITAT Chennai's decision to grant full S.54F deduction for property purchase in wife's name out of a ...
Income Tax : For claiming exemption Section 54 to 54 GB of the Act, for which last date falls between 01st April. 2021 to 28th February, 2022 m...
Income Tax : Vide Income Tax Notification No. 35/2020 dated 24.06.2020 govt extends Due date for ITR for FY 2018-19 upto 31.07.2020, Last...
The old flat had been sold on 7.3.2006 and therefore the assessee was required to construct a new residential house by 6.3.2009. The purpose of section 54 is to allow exemption to the assessee of long term capital gain arising from sale of residential house if the capital gain is invested in construction of new residential house within a period of three years from the date of transfer and, therefore, in case, the assessee had invested the capital gains in construction of a new residential house within a period of three years, this should be treated as sufficient compliance of the provisions.
Whether where assessee invested sale proceeds of tenancy rights in specified bonds, he was entitled to deduction under section 54EC even though his wife and daughters were co-holders of said bonds? Exemption Under Section 54F if Assessee claims two units as one he has to furnish Approved Municipal Plan.
In the instant case, it is found that the eligible new asset was not purchased within one year before the date on which the transfer of the original asset took place. Thus, the amount which is not utilized by the assessee for the purchase of new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income under section 139 was required to be deposited as per the provisions of sub-section (4) for availing deduction under section 54F in respect of those amounts also. In other words, as per the plain language employed in the above sub-section (4), only the amount which was actually utilized by the assessee for the purpose of purchase of the new residential house before the date of furnishing of the return of income under section 139 shall only be eligible for computation of deduction under section 54F(1).
. Given the fact that the assessee had not owned the property in her name only to the exclusion of anybody else including the husband, but in joint name with her husband, we agree with the submission of the learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee herein that unless and until there are materials to show that the assessee is the exclusive owner of the residential property, the harshness of the proviso cannot be applied to the facts herein. Apart from that, 50% ownership is with reference to the clinic situated in the ground floor. As such, the entire property is not an exclusive residential property. Hence, we are inclined to agree with the assessee’s contention that the joint ownership of the property would not stand in the way of claiming exemption under Section 54F.
Assessee having constructed the building and invested the capital gain, the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s. 54F of the Act if other conditions discussed herein below are fulfilled.
In the instant case, the claim of the CIT is that the assessee is the owner of house properties situated at Trichy and Bangalroe and therefore, the said decision is not squarely applicable to the facts of the case. In our considered view, if the house properties situated at Trichy and Bangalore are owned by the assessee’s wife then the same cannot be considered as owned by the assessee for disallowing exemption u/s 54F of the Act.
The learned First Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the fact that the provisions of U/s. 54F do not require the same sale proceeds to be utilized to claim deduction U/s. 54F.
Assessee has invested in purchase of new residential house at Rs. 70,80,620/- within the period of two years in which the transfer took place and therefore, the assessee was eligible for deduction u/s 54F(1) of the Act in respect of the said investment out of this deemed long term capital gains. In our considered opinion, the Assessing Officer was not justified in not granting exemption u/s 54F with reference to this investment made by the assessee in computing long term capital gains of the year under consideration.
Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Miss Jagriti (supra) has held that sub-section (4) of section 139 provides the extension period of limitation as an exception to sub-sec. (1) of sec. 139 of the Act. Sub-sec. (4) was in relation to the time allowed to an assessee under sub-sec. (1) to file the return. Therefore, such provision was not an independent provision, but relates to the time contemplated under sub-sec.(1) of sec. 139. Therefore, subsec.(4) has to be read along with sub-sec.(1).
CIT vs. Jawahar Bhattacharjee we hold that Daga Entrade P. Ltd. lays down correct law and the same is not in conflict with the earlier order of this Court in Rajendra Singh. Jurisdiction under Section 263 can be exercised whenever it is found that the order of assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Cases of assessment order passed on wrong assumption of facts, on incorrect application of law, without due application of mind or without following principles of natural justice are not beyond the scope of Section 263 of the Act.
