Skip to main content

Get capital gain exemption if provisional possession transferred within two years of disposal of the old property

In significant judgement in Dr. Jasvir Singh Rana vs. II Dept., tge Delhi ITAT, in a significant ruling, held that assessee can avail the benefit of capital gain exemption if provisional possession of the new property was transferred within two years of disposal of the old property.

The bench, while overruling the contentions of the department, ruled that when the provisional possession of the property is transferred to the assessee, benefit of section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be denied to him merely on ground that the registration of the sale deed has not been made in his favour. Assessee sold his immovable property and jewellery for purachasing a new residential unit from M/s. Unitech Acacia Project Private Limited which was provisionally allotted to him. Assessee further deposited the remaining property in the capital gain account scheme and claimed u/s 54 and 54F of the Income Tax Act. However, the claim was rejected by the department on ground that the assessee has failed to purchase or construct residential house within period of one year and there years as the case may be. According to the department, the benefit of s.54F is not available to assessee since the amount of capital gain remained unutilized. Perafter analyzing the agreement entered into between the assessee and M/s. Unitech Acacia Projects Pvt. Ltd, the bench noted that the possession of the plot was to be handed over to the assessee within a period of six months.

Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessee-can-avail-benefit-capital-gain-exemption-possession-new-property-transferred-within-2-years-delhi-itat/11411/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Taxscan+%28Top+Stories+%E2%80%93+Taxscan+%7C+Simplifying+Tax+Laws%29

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more