Skip to main content

No retrospective effect of new capital gains tax rules

The Madras high court, in a recent order, has held that the restrictive provisions introduced in the Income Tax (I-T) Act, which call for reinvestment in only 'one' residential house in India for claiming capital gains tax exemption, apply from fiscal April 1, 2014.

The explanatory memorandum to the Finance Bill, 2014, had clarified that the benefit of capital gains tax exemption under section 54 and 54F was intended only in respect of reinvestment in one residential house in India. Thus, on enactment of the Bill, the relevant sections of the I-T Act were amended.

Earlier, the words used in the I-T Act were reinvestment in 'a residential house'. This is now substituted with 'one residential house in India'. Prior to the amendment, there was ambiguity on whether the term 'a residential house' meant a single unit or could include more than one new house.

Tax authorities often disputed the matter when a taxpayer had sold a house or any other long-term capital asset (say land) and reinvested in more than one house. However, courts in several instances passed orders in favour of the taxpayer. Court orders were favourable especially in those instances where the reinvestment was in adjoining flats and joint use by the family could be proven through a common kitchen, or a passage connecting the two flats. 

As this issue was litigious, the apprehension was that tax authorities could contend that the amendment made was clarificatory in nature. Thus, it would apply even to pending assessment cases. 

"However, the Madras high court's decision, which is the first such decision post the amendment to tax laws, makes it clear that the amendment curtailing reinvestment for the purpose of capital gains tax exemption in only one residential house in India, applies only from April 1, 2014. Thus, this decision will help taxpayers whose cases are currently pending at various levels of litigation," says Surabhi Marwah, tax partner at EY. 

In V R Karpagam's case, which was heard by the Madras high court, the taxpayer — under a land development agreement with a builder — was to receive 43.75% of the built-up area after development. This translated into five flats and the taxpayer claimed exemption under section 54F of the I-T Act on the value of the five flats. According to her, there were no taxable capital gains post claiming this exemption for the fiscal year 2006-07. 

The Madras high court observed, "Prior to the amendment, it is clear that 'a residential house' would include multiple flats or residential units, as in the present case where the taxpayer has got five residential flats." Hence, the high court ruled in favour of the taxpayer.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/No-retrospective-effect-of-new-capital-gains-tax-rules/articleshow/41565536.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Flat owner without legal title has consumer rights

In a significant judgment, the South Mumbai Consumer Forum has held that a flat owner legally occupying the flat would be a consumer, even if his title to the flat might be in dispute before a competent court. Thurlow owned a flat in a co-operative society. Appuswami was residing with him. In 1976, Appuswami got married in the same flat, and his wife started residing in the same flat. They had three children, born and brought up in the same flat. After Thurlow expired in 2004, Appuswami approached the High Court for inheritance to Thurlow's estate but expired while the matter was pending. His wife and children were brought on record. Subsequently, the society intervened, contending Appuswami did not have any right to the flat and it should be handed over to the Society. The Appuswami family continued to reside in the flat, and even pay the society's outgoings and maintenance charges. Later, the society stopped collecting maintenance charges from all members, as it earned...
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subs...
Post a Comment
Read more