Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 223 - ITAT CHANDIGARHExemption u/s 54B - LTCG was invested in the purchase of another agricultural land in the name of his wife - Benefit of exemption denied on the ground that investment was not made in the own name of the assessee - HELD THAT:- In “Kamal Kant Kamboj” [2017 (8) TMI 285 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] relying on its earlier decisions of Dinesh Verma” [2015 (7) TMI 486 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] and “Jai Narain [2007 (8) TMI 295 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] has held that as held in Jai Narain’s case, Section 54B of the Income Tax Act nowhere suggests that the legislature intended to advance the benefit of the said Section to an assessee who purchases agricultural land in the name of a third person; that the term “assessee” is qualified by the expression “purchased any other land for being used for agricultural purposes”, which necessarily means that the new asset has to be in the name of the assessee himself; that therefore, purchase of agricultural land by the assessee in the name of his son or grandson etc. does not qualify for exemption u/s 54B. Assessee would not be entitled to the benefit conferred by the provisions of Section 54B - Decided against assessee.
|