9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (4) TMI 725 - HC - Income TaxExemption u/s 54B denied - appellant and his three brothers had sold jointly owned land and for his 1/4th share he purchased land in the name of his wife and claimed exemption under Section 54B - HELD THAT - It is an undisputed fact that after selling the agricultural land the appellant purchased a land worth his share, in the name of his wife. The issue is directly covered by the decision of this Court in Dinesh Verma's case 2015 (7) TMI 486 - PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT wherein declined the exemption Section 54B as it requires the assessee to purchase the property from out of the sale consideration of the capital asset. It does not entitle the assessee to the benefit conferred therein if the subsequent property is purchased by a person other than the assessee including a close relative even such as his wife or children. If the legislature intended conferring such a benefit, it would have provided for the same expressly. The reliance of Gurnam Singh's case 2008 (4) TMI 28 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT will not enhance the case of the appellant as the property in that case was purchased in the joint name of the assessee and his only son, which is not the case in the present case. - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
Exemption under Section 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Comprehensive Analysis: Issue: Exemption under Section 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking exemption under Section 54B of the Act. The appellant, along with his brothers, sold jointly owned land and purchased land for his 1/4th share in his wife's name. The authorities denied the exemption, citing a previous judgment of the court in Commissioner of Income-Tax, Faridabad vs. Shri Dinesh Verma. The appellant argued that the court had not considered the case of CIT vs. Gurnam Singh, (2010) 327 ITR 0278, which entitled him to the exemption under Section 54B. However, the court found the appellant's contention lacking merit. The court emphasized that the appellant had indeed purchased land worth his share in his wife's name after selling the agricultural land. The court referred to its decision in Dinesh Verma's case, stating that the reliance on Gurnam Singh's case would not strengthen the appellant's case. This was because in Gurnam Singh's case, the property was purchased jointly with the assessee's son, which was not the situation in the appellant's case. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the authorities to deny the exemption under Section 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In conclusion, the court's judgment was based on the specific circumstances of the case, analyzing the applicability of Section 54B of the Act in relation to the property purchase made by the appellant. The court's decision highlighted the importance of the ownership structure of the purchased property in determining eligibility for exemptions under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
|
