Income Tax : Courts held that investment in under-construction property qualifies as construction under Sections 54/54F. Deduction cannot be de...
Income Tax : Courts held that exemption cannot be denied merely due to lack of registration if possession and substantial payment are proven. T...
Income Tax : Tribunal held that a commercial tannery cannot be treated as a residential house merely because rent is taxed under “House Prope...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that incomplete villas incapable of occupation and held as business assets do not amount to residential houses. ...
Income Tax : Learn about capital gains tax exemptions under Sections 54 to 54GB of the Income Tax Act, conditions for eligibility, and withdraw...
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 : The issue was denial of capital gains exemption due to claim under wrong section. The tribunal held that a genuine claim cannot be...
Income Tax : The Court held that reassessment cannot be initiated on issues already examined during scrutiny assessment. It ruled that reopenin...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai set aside the appellate order and remanded issues on protective addition, Section 54F exemption, and TDS credit misma...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that deposit in the capital gains scheme is not required if the entire amount is invested before filing the retu...
Income Tax : The Tribunal quashed reassessment proceedings as they were based on a mere change of opinion without any fresh tangible material. ...
CA, CS, CMA : The ICAI Disciplinary Committee reprimanded CA Jayant Ishwardas Mehta for professional misconduct involving an incorrect income t...
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...
Raj Babbar v. ITO – Based on the factual matrix of the present case, where the assessee invested total full value consideration of Rs. 16,87,000/- (as per the SRO) in the residential house, which is one house only as it has only one kitchen, and these FVC is less than the invested amounts of 17,65,752/-, during the specified period, the assessee is not chargeable to tax on the capital gains u/s 45 of the Act.
In the case before us, admittedly no plans were made, therefore, there is no question of getting the same approved. Apart from this, the ld. counsel of the assessee admitted that assessee has no evidence to prove that assessee wanted to start construction. If the tax is allowed to be postponed merely on the basis of purchase of plot then no assessee would pay correct taxes during the year
As held in D. Ananda Basappa’s case (1 supra) by the Karnataka High Court, the expression a residential house in Section 54 (1) of the Act has to be understood in a sense that the building should be of residential nature and a should not be understood to indicate a singular number
There is no dispute regarding the source of income of the assessee which is mainly from the business of purchase and sale of plots/lands. But it does not mean that such an assessee is debarred from purchasing and holding some plots/land as capital asset and claim benefit u/s 54F.
Sometime back, a query was raised whether the benefit of exemption under sections 54 and 54F of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), in respect of long-term capital gains, on account of investment of such capital gains in the purchase / construction of a residential house in a foreign country, is available to an assessee, being a non-resident Indian.
The mistake on the part of the assessee is that the assessee invested a part amount of sale consideration/ capital gain in residential house instead of gross sale consideration and claimed deduction under section 54F. It is relevant to note that for claiming deduction under section 54 of the Act investment of capital gain is the requirement whereas for claiming dedication under section 54F investment of sale consideration is the condition. From the facts of the case it is a clear cut case of bona fide calculation mistake.
Last proviso to section 54F clearly mentions that when amounts deposited under Capital Gains Account Scheme were not utilised wholly or partly for the purchase or construction within the period specified, then such amount would be charged as income of the previous year in which the period of three years, starting from the date of the transfer of the asset expired.
The words mentioned in section 54F are that the amount should be invested in the construction of a residential house. Therefore, once the assessee having been invested total sale consideration into construction of a residential house, then it is not necessary that the residential house should have been completed within three years of the transfer of the original asset.
The assessee was owner of the property standing in his name which was sold; qua capital gain exemption u/s 54f was claimed by the assessee as the sale proceeds of the property were utilized for purchasing another house in the name of assessee and his wife. Wife did not contribute any amount towards purchase. Thus new house was purchased by the assessee.
In the present case, the assessee was allotted two flats on two different stories which he claimed as eligible for exemption u/s 54. Admittedly there is no unity of construction between such flats. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sushila M. Jhaveri (supra) has categorically held that the exemption u/s 54 is available only in respect of one house and not more than one.
