9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1090X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee has invested only ₹ 15,00,000/-. Therefore, the assessee is entitled for exemption proportionately. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly allowed the exemption proportionately. This Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed Computation of capital gains - Held that:- This Tribunal found that after the consideration received by the assessee, what was deposited in IDBI bonds within the prescribed time is only ₹ 15,00,000/-. Therefore, the Tribunal upholds the order of the Assessing Officer which proportionately allowed exemption under Section 54E of the Act. In this appeal, the CIT(Appeals) has further allowed 60% under Section 48(2) of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... since the assessee has received entire amount of ₹ 3,52,500/- during the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') and assessed the same. However, the CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition on the ground that the interest was received in advance on capital bonds attributable to 36 months. Therefore, the right to receive the amount accrued to the assessee arises only in the next assessment year. The advance cannot be construed as income of the assessee during the year under consideration. The CIT(Appeals) has also found that reopening of assessment was due to change of opinion, therefore, he deleted the addition on the ground that the As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. The interest on the bonds was spread over for 36 months. What was received by the assessee is the entire interest for 36 months in advance. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the entire money received by the assessee cannot be construed as income in the hands of the assessee. What was to be construed as income is in respect of the money received for which the assessee has right to retain the same. In the case before us, what was received by the assessee is advance money which would have been otherwise paid for 36 months. Therefore, the assessee has no right to retain the same. Hence, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(Appeals) has rightly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer on merit. Sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the amount invested in IDBI bonds. The Ld. D.R. further submitted that deduction under Section 48(i)(b) of the Act has to be made only to the capital gain determined under Section 48(i)(a) of the Act. Referring to Sections 54E and 48(i)(b) of the Act, the Ld. D.R. submitted that both the sections are operating in two different ways and therefore, no ambiguity in the application of Section 54E of the Act for exemption on long term capital gains if it is invested as prescribed therein. The Ld. D.R. further submitted that the assessee has transferred the capital asset, the immovable property for a total consideration of ₹ 37,79,978/- on 17.04.1989, and the assessee claimed exemption of the entire capital gain of ₹ 36,68,051/-. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to computation of capital gains. 11. The Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the Assessing Officer computed the exemption under Section 54E of the Act at ₹ 14,55,000/- as against the claim of ₹ 36,68,051/-. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) found that the deduction admissible under Section 54E of the Act is ₹ 11,33,926/- and the chargeable capital gains will be ₹ 17,23,552/-. The CIT(Appeals) has also found that further deduction of 60% has to be allowed under Section 48(2) of the Act. Ultimately, the CIT(Appeals) found that the exemption will be to the extent of ₹ 10,34,131/- and the assessable capital gains would be ₹ 6,89,421/-. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) estimated the capital gai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
