Skip to main content

Booking of an Under-Construction Flat is a Case of Construction and not Purchase

The Mumbai  bench of  Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Mr. Mustansir I Tehsildar vs Income Tax Officer has held that booking of an under-construction flat is a case of construction and not a purchase. 

The bench comprising of Judicial Member Saktijit Dey and Accountant Member B.R.Baskaran ruled so while allowing the assesse’s appeal. 

The instant appeal filed by assesse challenging the order of CIT(A), Mumbai confirming the partial rejection of claim made by the assessee for deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act for assessment year 2013-14. 

Assesse in the present case held a share in flat of an apartment ,sold the same for consideration  and consequent thereto, the long term capital gain was computed .The assessee had earlier booked a flat which was under construction and he had made payments to the builder much earlier to the date of transfer of old flat and the aggregate payments made by the assessee towards the new flat was more than the amount of Capital gain ie; entire amount of capital gain was deductible u/s 54 of the Act by treating the acquisition of new flat as a case of “Construction”. 

The assessing officer, on the other hand took the acquisition of flat as a case of purchase of flat. Accordingly he took the view that the flat should have been purchased one year before or two years after the date of transfer and the aggregate payment made by the assesse falls outside the period and hence not eligible for deduction u/s 54 of the Act. 

The tribunal observed that since the amount invested in the new flat prior to the due date for furnishing return of income was more than the amount of capital gain, the requirements of depositing any money under capital gains account scheme does not arise in the instant case. 

It further observed that the acquisition of new flat in an apartment under construction should be considered as a case of “Construction” and not “Purchase” and held that the assesse is entitled for deduction of full amount of capital gains u/s 54 of the Act The tribunal bench set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow the deduction u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act as claimed by the assesse.

Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/booking-construction-flat-case-construction-not-purchase-itat-grants-capital-gain-exemption/15393/?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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more