Skip to main content

Cost incurred on Alteration / Renovation on the purchased unit is Eligible for Capital Gain Exemption

In Income-tax Officer vs Shri. Ramakrishna M. J, Assessee, sold his property and purchased a new house within the prescribed time. The capital gain was also used for alteration / renovation on the purchased unit and to the construction of the third floor. Since he utilised the entire amount for construction of new house within the provisions of Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, assessee claimed the benefit of the provision.

However, the claim was disallowed on the ground that the same would amount to construction of new unit in addition to the unit that the assessee has purchased. The AO was of the opinion that the exemption is only available for purchase of units within two years out of the sale proceeds from the date of transfer of the capital asset. On appeal, the first appellate authority allowed the contentions of the assessee. the department challenged the order before the Appellate Tribunal.

The ITAT noted the fact that the assessee had spent an amount of Rs.32,50,000/- towards alteration made to the house and that payment was made to the contractor. The observed that the word ‘constructed’ is used in the later part of Section 54F. Upholding the first appellate order, the bench ruled that “If the interpretation as has been given by the AO is accepted, that the word used ‘purchased’ is required to be restricted only to actual purchase and if any addition, alteration or demolition of the property is carried out by the assessee for the purposes of reconstruction after the demolition and for making it convenient for his use, then the cost incurred by the assessee for that purpose would not be eligible for deduction u/s.54F, is against the very purpose of providing this deduction in the statute book. Our reading of the provision makes it abundantly clear that the purchase do not include a purchase which is not a purchase of an asset which is not incapable of being used by the assessee. The assets for the purpose of Section of 54F should be an asset purchased by the assesse and if an assessee incurs a cost for making it useful and convenient after taking approval from the competent authority, as in the present case, then the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s.54F of the Act.”

Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/cost-incurred-alteration-renovation-purchased-unit-eligible-capital-gain-exemption-us-54f-itat-bengaluru/11319/

Comments

  1. Blogger21 October 2018 at 01:38

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more