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

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more