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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more