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

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