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

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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more