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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more