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 + AT Income Tax - 2021 (3) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2021 (3) TMI 679 - AT - Income Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Reopening of assessment
2. Classification of capital gains as long-term or short-term
3. Eligibility for deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Reopening of Assessment:
Grounds 2 and 3 pertained to the issue of reopening the assessment. However, as no arguments were raised regarding this issue, these grounds were dismissed.

2. Classification of Capital Gains:
The primary issue was whether the capital gains from the sale of Flat No. 304, Buttercup, Hiranandani Meadows, Thane, should be classified as long-term or short-term capital gains. The assessee claimed it as long-term capital gains (LTCG) and sought deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) and the CIT(A) classified it as short-term capital gains (STCG) based on the date of the registered sale agreement.

Key Facts and Arguments:
- The assessee argued that the flat was allotted on 22.02.2006, and substantial payments were made thereafter, thus holding the asset since that date.
- The A.O. contended that the flat was purchased on 06.03.2009, and sold on 26.09.2009, thus not meeting the 36-month holding period required for LTCG.

Legal Provisions and Analysis:
- Section 2(42A) defines "short-term capital asset" as one held for not more than 36 months preceding the date of transfer.
- Section 2(47) defines "transfer" and includes rights acquired through agreements or arrangements.
- Circular No. 471 and Circular No. 672 by the CBDT clarified that the date of allotment is considered the date of acquisition for capital gains purposes.

Judicial Precedents:
- The Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. A Suresh Rao emphasized that the term "held" does not necessitate legal ownership but rather possession and control.
- The Punjab & Haryana High Court in Mrs. Madhu Kaul v. CIT and Vinod Kumar Jain v. CIT held that the allotment letter confers the right to hold the property, and subsequent payments and possession are formalities.
- The Bombay High Court in CIT v. Tata Services Limited and Principal CIT v. Vembu Vaidyanathan reiterated that the allotment letter date is crucial for determining the holding period.

Conclusion:
Based on the allotment letter dated 22.02.2006 and the judicial precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee held the flat since the allotment date. Therefore, the sale resulted in long-term capital gains.

3. Eligibility for Deduction under Section 54:
The assessee claimed deduction under Section 54 for reinvestment in another property. Since the A.O. and CIT(A) classified the gains as STCG, they did not examine the deduction claim.

Tribunal's Direction:
The Tribunal restored the case to the A.O. to examine the eligibility for deduction under Section 54, considering the reinvestment details provided by the assessee.

Final Order:
The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the case was remanded to the A.O. for the limited purpose of examining the deduction claim under Section 54.

Order Pronouncement:
The order was pronounced on 16th March 2021.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates