Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AAR Income Tax - 2018 (1) TMI AAR This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2018 (1) TMI 947 - AAR - Income Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act for reinvestment in a residential property abroad.
2. Applicability of judicial precedents and interpretation in favor of the applicant.
3. Method for determination of long-term capital gain and applicable tax.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for Deduction Under Section 54:
The applicant, a non-resident Indian, sold a residential property in New Delhi and reinvested the capital gains in a residential property in London. The key question was whether the applicant is eligible for deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act for this reinvestment. The Authority examined the provisions of Section 54 as they existed for AY 2012-13, noting that there was no restriction that the reinvestment had to be in India. It was only after the amendment by the Finance Act, 2014, effective from 01.04.2015, that the requirement to invest in a residential house "in India" was introduced. The Authority concluded that the applicant is eligible for the deduction under Section 54 for the reinvestment in London, as the amendment was prospective and not applicable to AY 2012-13.

2. Applicability of Judicial Precedents and Interpretation in Favor of Applicant:
The applicant referred to the Gujarat High Court's decision in Leena Jugalkishore Shah, which held that prior to the amendment, there was no requirement for the investment to be made in India. The Revenue argued that the words "in India" should be read into the relevant sections to align with the intent of the legislature. However, the Authority found that the High Court's decision was directly on point and applicable to the applicant's case. The Authority emphasized that judicial discipline requires following the decisions of higher appellate authorities unless overruled by another competent court. Therefore, the applicant's interpretation, supported by the Gujarat High Court's ruling, was accepted.

3. Method for Determination of Long-Term Capital Gain and Applicable Tax:
The applicant sought guidance on the computation of long-term capital gains. The Authority noted that the residential property was inherited, and the period of holding should include the period held by the previous owner (the applicant's father). The cost of acquisition should be the fair market value as of 01.04.1981, with the benefit of indexation. The exact computation of capital gains and verification of valuation figures were left to the Assessing Officer. The Authority confirmed that the applicant is entitled to indexation benefits and the cost of improvement incurred.

Conclusion:
- Question 1: The applicant is eligible for the benefit under Section 54 for reinvestment in a residential property in London.
- Question 2: Not required to be adjudicated due to the High Court's ruling.
- Question 3: The period of holding includes the period held by the previous owner, and the applicant is entitled to indexation benefits. The Assessing Officer will verify the correctness of the valuation and material figures for computing taxable capital gains.

The Ruling was pronounced on 22nd December 2017.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates