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

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (4) TMI 537

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to disallow the exemption claimed - Relying upon Aayojan Developers vs. Income-tax Officer [2011 (2) TMI 738 - Gujarat High Court] – the reason on which the notice for reopening is issued lacks validity - Section 54E of the Act was neither applicable nor sought to be applied by the assessee - The question of denying any such claim under the provision for breach of condition did not arise - notice for reopening has to be sustained and supported only on the basis of reasons recorded by the assessing officer and not with the help of extraneous ground, material or possible improvement – the notice is set aside – Decided in favour of Assessee. - Special Civil Application No. 1312 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 1-4-2014 - Akil Kureshi And Sonia Gokan .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssued. The petitioner was supplied the reasons recored by the assessing officer for issuing such notice which reasons read as under:- In this case, you have filed its return of income on 03.03.2009 declaring total income of Rs.4,43,830/-. Further, assessment order u/s.143(3) of the Act was finalized in the case on 20.08.2010 determining total income at Rs.4,43,810/-. Verification of case record of your revealed and your income from and capital gain and was allowed exemption of capital gain income under section 54E of the Act. For Rs.37,00,000/- invested in State Bank of India term deposit for 40 days upto 366 days i.e. for less than three years. As per provision quoted above you are not entitled to get exemption for investment less than .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was to refer to section 54 of the Act, we are of the opinion that such stand is wholly incorrect. Had this been a case of mere typographical error, we would have ignored the mistake and referred to the correct statutory provision. The fact that reference under section 54E was however, not an error is manifest from the reasons recorded. It referred to the requirement of investing the surplus fund for a minimum period of 36 months. Such requirement flows from section 54E of the Act and not section 54. Section 54 in fact requires the assessee to acquire a new unit within a year or build himself within three years. In the later case he has to invest the surplus in specified investments. This was thus not a mere typographical error but a conscio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates