9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing total income of Rs. 33,41,850. During the assessment proceedings Assessing Officer after verifying the books of account and other information submitted by the assessee noticed that during the year under consideration assessee has executed contracts relating to maintenance work for LANCO Konkapally Power Private Limited and civil works for LANCO Infratech. During the year assessee has executed contract work for a gross value of Rs. 3,60,00,000. He further noticed that the assessee has sub contracted a portion of work to the tune of Rs. 2,05,64,308 to third parties. However, assessee has not offered any commission/royalty on the works sub contracted to third parties. As observed by the Assessing Officer commission/royalty estimated at 2% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laims deduction under section 54B. It was submitted by the assessee when the assessee has deposited public invested, the entire capital gain in accordance with the provisions contained under section 54B and 54F, assessee's claim cannot be rejected. 4. The learned CIT however, did not find merit in the submissions of the assessee. As far as the issue of estimation of profit on contract work is concerned, the learned CIT while setting aside the assessment order directed the Assessing Officer to examine the issue and passed the assessment order de novo. So far as the claim of exemption under section 54F is concerned, the learned CIT observed that since the sale proceedings of agricultural land was invested for acquiring the asset other than a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidered the submissions of the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue authorities as well as the materials placed on record. As far as the first issue relating to CIT's directions on estimation of profit from work contract business, as agreed by both the parties, it is of mere academic interest as in the consequential order passed by the Assessing Officer in pursuance to the directions of the CIT under section 263 the Assessing Officer has not made any variation to such income determined by him in the original assessment order. Therefore, the only surviving issue arising for consideration is in relation to the assessee's claim of exemption under section 54F. As can be seen from the facts on record during the relevant previous year, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... years, then assessee will be eligible for exemption under section 54F. On a reading of the aforesaid provisions, we do not find any restriction/conditions imposed therein that if an assessee claims exemption under section 54B is not eligible to claim under section 54F. Similarly, there is no restriction imposed under section 54F that capital gain derived from sale of agricultural land is not eligible for exemption under section 54F. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we do not find the reasoning of the learned CIT to be in accordance with the statutory provisions, hence acceptable. Moreover the ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Shri Satyanarayana (Supra) while deciding identical nature of dispute held as under: "4. After hear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
