9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Computation of deduction under section 48(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The case involved a dispute regarding the computation of deduction under section 48(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arising from the sale of land by the assessee. The assessee had sold land for Rs. 15,00,000, with a cost of land as on 1-4-1974 at Rs. 3,20,000 and total transfer expenses of Rs. 32,000. The assessee claimed exemption under section 54E by investing Rs. 5,99,900 in a specified asset. The dispute arose when the Commissioner of Income-tax recalculated the net capital gain chargeable to tax at Rs. 3,38,500, differing from the assessee's computation of Rs. 99,868. The main contention was whether the deduction under section 48(2) should be allowed with reference to the capital gain arrived at under section 48(1)(a) after excluding the amount of exemption under section 54E. The Tribunal considered the provisions of the Income-tax Act, specifically sections 45, 48, 53, and 54E, to interpret the computation of capital gains and deductions. It noted that section 54E provides that the capital gain attributable to the investment in specified assets shall not be charged to tax. The Tribunal emphasized that the provisions of section 48(1)(a) cannot be read in isolation but must be read in conjunction with the sections regarding exemptions listed in section 45. It held that the capital gain referred to under section 48(1)(a) should exclude amounts not chargeable to tax under various sections, including section 54E. The net balance after deductions mentioned in section 48(1)(a) should be considered for the purpose of deduction under section 48(2. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that the deduction should be allowed against the income not chargeable to tax, stating that it would defeat the legislative intent of promoting savings through investments. The Tribunal cited decisions in support of its interpretation, including Capt. K.C. Saigal v. ITO and Mrs. Pushpa B. Sheth v. Asstt. CIT. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
|
