The issue – The principal; rather, the sole issue arising in the instant appeal; the assessee not pressing its ground no.1 assailing the impugned assessment on the question of jurisdiction (which we find to have been, though assumed, not pressed even before the first appellate authority, withdrawing the objection vide letter dated 07.01.2013)
Sec.50 is only to deal capital gain as short term capital gain and not to deem the asset as short term capital asset. Therefore, it cannot be said that Sec. 50 converts long term capital asset into a short term capital asset
For grant of deduction u/s 54F in case of construction of a residential house, the condition is that the assessee has within a period of three years after the date of transfer of long term asset, constructed a residential house.
The Hon’ble Chennai ITAT has in the case of B.Sivasubramanian,v/s ITO has held that there is no condition in the provisions of SEC 54F of the I.T Act,1961 that warrants that the building plan of the residential house constructed should be approved by the Municipal Corporation or any other competent authority.
Explanation 3 will be applicable in case where live issue, which was subsisting at the time of original assessment and if such issue has escaped the determination of the assessing officer, can be a ground for reopening. Any new issue that has cropped up subsequently on new set of facts, the aforesaid Explanation has no application.
The provisions of section 54F mandates the construction of a residential house, within the period specified. However, there is no condition that the building plan of the residential house constructed should be approved by the Municipal Corporation or any other competent authority. If any person constructs a house without approval of building plan, he will be raising construction at his own risk and cost. As far as for availing exemption u/s.54F, approval of building plan is not necessary.
Whether for the purpose of determining arm’s length price of international transactions of the assessee-company, providing back office support services to their overseas associated enterprises, companies performing KPO functions should be considered as comparable?
Hon’ble Bombay HC has recently held in the case of Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Ltd. Vs. CIT that In the event, the Counsel engaged by the Department is absent without a justifiable or reasonable cause, we will invariably impose costs and to be paid by the Counsel personally.
A bare reading of section 54F clearly shows that the assessee is entitled for exemption in case he / she constructs a residential house within a period of three years after the sale of the capital asset. However, sub clause (4) of section 54F clearly says that the unutilized portion of the net sale consideration which is otherwise liable for capital gain tax shall be deposited in the capital gain account scheme within the period of due date for filing return of income u/s 139.
The Tribunal has specifically found that in the process of manufacture of cotton yarn, cotton waste came to be generated and the use of the said waste by another manufacturer shows that it was used as raw material by purchaser.
