9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t within six months period from the date of transfer of capital assets, assessee was definitely eligible to claim exemption upto ₹ 1 Crore. The same view has been taken by Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Aspi Ginwala & Others (2012 (4) TMI 195 - ITAT AHMEDABAD ). We are, therefore, of the opinion that the assessee has to succeed in this appeal. Claim of the assessee for exemption upto ₹ 1 Crore has to be allowed in accordance with Section 54EC of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee. CIT(A) directing the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction of ₹ 81,48,754/- from LTCG and of ₹ 18,51,246/- from the STCG and tax the balance LTCG of ₹ 23,97,146/- and STCG of ₹ 5,44,587/- - Held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer to allow the deduction of ₹ 81,48,754/- from LTCG and of ₹ 18,51,246/- from the STCG and tax the balance LTCG of ₹ 23,97,146/- and STCG of ₹ 5,44,587/-. 3. The Ld.CIT(A)-III Rajkot has erred in law and on in facts in directing the AO to allow expenses amounting to ₹ 6,09,870/- debited in P L Account. 4. On the fact of the case, the Ld.CIT(A)-III, Rajkot ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. It is, therefore prayed that the order of the Ld.CIT(A)-III Rajkot may kindly be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer may kindly be restored back to the extent. 2. Briefly stated facts are that the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0(Mad) was the validity of notification No.380/2006, [F.No.142 of 2006-TPL], dated 22-12-2006 by which Central Government had restricted amount of investment in notified bonds to avail of benefit of exemption under section 54EC to a sum of ₹ 50 lakhs per person. However, the writ petition before H ble Madras High Court became infructuous because the power to limit on the amount of investment by an assessee in bonds was by then incorporated in the section itself. By the proviso to Explanation (b), the bond notified before 1-4-2007 with a condition, was also deemed to be a bond notified under the amended provision. Therefore the issue before H ble Madras High Court was not whether the claim of exemption under section 54EC may exceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, H ble ITAT-Ahmedabad in case of Shri Aspi Ginwala V/s. ACIT in ITA no.3226/Ahd/2011, in order dated 30- 03-2012 held that since the wording of the proviso to section 54EC is clear, the benefits which are available to the assessee cannot be denied and held that the assessee is entitled for exemption of ₹ 1 crore as six months, period for investment in eligible investments involved is two financial years. H ble Supreme court in case of Vegetable Products (88 ITR 192) held that- if two reasonable construction of a taxing provision are possible, that construction which favours the assessee must be adopted. Therefore, I direct the Assessing Officer to allow deduction of ₹ 1 crore u/s.54EC to the appellant. 5.1. The ld.counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evant Explanatory Memorandum is reproduced for brevity:- The quantum of investible bonds issued by HNAI and REC being limited, it was felt necessary to ensure that the benefit was available to all the investors. For this purpose, it was necessary to ensure that the limited number of bonds available for subscription is also available for small investors. Therefore, with a view to ensure equitable distribution of benefits amongst prospective investors, the government decided to impose a ceiling on the quantum of investment that could be made in such bonds. Accordingly, the said section has been amended so as to provide for a ceiling on investment by an assessee in such longterm specified assets. Investments in such specified assets to ava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee supported the order of the ld.CIT(A). The ld.counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on the judgement of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of DCIT vs. Himalaya Machinery (P.) Ltd. reported at (2013) 29 taxmann.com 380 (Guj.) and also the judgement of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Polestar Industries in Tax Appeal No.747 of 2013 :: (2013) 221 Taxman 423 (Gujarat), wherein the issue has been decided by the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in favour of assessee. Therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Polestar Industries(supra), this ground of Revenue s appeal is rejected. 7. Apropos to Ground No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
