9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Merger of orders between ITO and AAC 2. Applicability of s. 54-B exemption to HUFs Analysis: Issue 1: Merger of orders between ITO and AAC The appeal pertains to the assessment year 1980-81 of an HUF. The CIT, Madurai, contended that a mistake prejudicial to the Revenue was made as the provisions of s. 54-B(1) were not applicable to an HUF. The assessee argued that there was a merger of the ITO's and AAC's orders, preventing the CIT from revising the assessment. The assessee relied on the decision in Dwarakadas Private Ltd. vs. ITO. However, the CIT disagreed, set aside the assessment, and directed the ITO to tax capital gains after giving the assessee a hearing. Issue 2: Applicability of s. 54-B exemption to HUFs The assessee contended that the exemption under s. 54-B was available to HUFs, citing that the amendment limiting the exemption to individuals was not extended to s. 54-B. The Revenue argued that the exemption did not apply to HUFs based on references to individuals or their parents in the section. The Revenue relied on various decisions supporting this interpretation. The Tribunal found that there was a merger of orders between the ITO and AAC, even though the issue was academic due to the Tribunal's consistent stance that capital gains from Malaysia were not taxable in India. As the income from capital gains could not be included in the Indian assessment, the ITO did not commit an error prejudicial to the Revenue. Consequently, the CIT's order was deemed unjustified on merits, and the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and reinstated the ITO's decision. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee, and the issue of the applicability of s. 54-B to HUFs was left undecided due to the Tribunal's decision regarding the non-taxability of capital gains from Malaysia in Indian assessments.
|
