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

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more