1999 (7) TMI 107 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility for rebate under section 88 for investment in property.
2. Interpretation of the term 'company' in section 88(2)(xv).
3. Requirement of being a shareholder or member for claiming rebate under section 88(2)(xv).

Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: The main issue in this case is the eligibility of the assessee for claiming a rebate under section 88 for an investment in property. The assessee, a practising advocate, claimed a rebate under section 88 in the amount of Rs. 10,000 for an investment in property. However, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee did not meet the requirements of sub-clause (b) of section 88(2)(xv) as he was not a shareholder of the company in question, Ankur Housing Investments. Consequently, the Assessing Officer denied the rebate, leading to the appeal by the assessee.

Issue 2: The interpretation of the term 'company' in section 88(2)(xv) was a crucial point of contention in this case. The assessee argued that the term 'company' should be broadly construed to include AOP, partnership, and other combinations of individuals. However, the Tribunal referred to the definition of 'company' under the Income-tax Act, which clearly delineated the scope of the term. The Tribunal observed that the private limited company in question did not fall under the definition of a co-operative society, and the assessee was not a shareholder of the company but merely a customer.

Issue 3: Another significant issue was the requirement of being a shareholder or member for claiming the rebate under section 88(2)(xv). The Tribunal analyzed the relevant clauses of section 88(2)(xv) and emphasized that in order to claim the rebate, the assessee should either be a shareholder of the company or a member of the co-operative society providing the housing. Since the assessee did not meet these conditions and was only a customer of Ankur Housing Investments, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the first appellate authority to dismiss the assessee's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no legal infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities and upheld the dismissal of the assessee's appeal regarding the eligibility for the rebate under section 88 for the investment in property. The judgment underscores the importance of meeting the specific criteria outlined in the tax provisions for claiming rebates and highlights the significance of precise statutory interpretation in tax matters.