9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver, in the case before us, the assessee has not deposited any amount in to any bank account, leave alone the capital gains account. Therefore, in our opinion, the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 54F of the IT Act only on the amount which is invested up to the time available u/s 139(4) to file the return of income. In the case before us, the assessee has filed the return of income on 14-02-2013, therefore, the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 54F of the Act for the amount invested by him till such date. In the case of Humayun Suleman Merchant Vs CCIT (2016 (9) TMI 70 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) held that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 54F of the IT Act on the amounts spent for construction of a house till the date of filin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plaints to police with regard to his interference, and therefore, the assessee had to sell the priorities for lower price. Thus, he requested that the provisions of Sec 50C of the Act may not be applied. However, the A.O observed that the assessee has not sold the property to any of the persons who have created the problems and also that he did not agitate against the value adopted by the SRO at the time of registration of the sale deed. Therefore, he adopted the SRO values as sale consideration. Thereafter, he proceeded to consider the assessee s claim of deduction u/s 54 of the Act. He observed that the assessee has claimed a sum of ₹ 54,29,140/- as deduction u/s 54 of the Act and on considering the investment made by the assessee d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... swal Vs. ITO 6. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the order of the authorities below and placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Humayun Suleman Merchant Vs CCIT [2016] 73 taxmann.com 2 (Bombay) 7. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that undisputedly the assessee has invested the entire capital gain in construction of a new house within the period of three years from the date of sale of the original asset. As per Sec. 54F(4) of the Act, the assessee is required to deposit the amount of the net consideration which is not appropriated by the assessee towards the purchase of the new asset made within one year before the date on which the transfer of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inda P. Issac (supra). We find that in these two decisions the Hon ble High Courts have held that the reference to Sec. 139 of the Act in Sec 54F of the Act, is also to the period under Sub Sec. 4 of Sec 139 of the Act, and therefore Sec. 54 deduction could be allowed to the assessee on the investment made up to the period u/s 139(4) of the Act. In the case of Sri Ajeet Kumar Jaiswal Vs. ITO (supra), this Tribunal was considering the case of an assessee who had deposited the capital gains into term deposit account and not the capital gains account as required u/s 54(2) of the Act and since the funds were not utilized for any other purpose but for construction of a new asset, this Tribunal had held that the assessee was eligible for deduct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
