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

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

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more

Communications Made In Course Of Disciplinary Proceedings Protected By Qualified Privilege

In Manik Lal Bhowmik Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, the Calcutta High Court has held that a charge sheet issued against an employee in a disciplinary proceedings, the enquiry report and the letter of dismissal are protected by qualified proceedings, the enquiry report and the letter of dismissal are protected by qualified privilege. However, in the facts of the case two questions arise on the answer of which will depend the success or failure of this suit. Firstly, has the suit been filed within the time period specified in the Limitation Act, 1963? Secondly, assuming that the answer to the first question is in favour of the plaintiff, is the defence of absolute or qualified privilege available to the defendant? Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that subject to the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24, every suit instituted, appeal preferred and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence...
Post a Comment
Read more