9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 875X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... See Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Bharti Mishra [2014 (1) TMI 446 - DELHI HIGH COURT] Similarly in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs J.R. Subramanya Bhat reported in (1986 (6) TMI 7 - KARNATAKA High Court) had expressed similar view and had held that investment made towards construction of house property prior to the date of transfer should also be eligible as deduction for the purpose of section 54 of the Act. On the facts of this case, we find that the construction of house property had been completed within three years from the date of transfer and accordingly, we are of the view that the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s 54F in respect of the two disputed amounts viz. ₹ 12 lakh paid on 20.06.2008 and S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ements of section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act') were fulfilled. It was also contended by the assessee before the Assessing Officer that although the construction was started prior to the date of sale of old property, the same was immaterial as the construction was completed within a period of three years from the date of sale. The assessee also contended before the Assessing Officer that in the alternative even if it was to be considered as purchase of new house, he had made substantial investment towards purchase of new house during the year under consideration and further that the agreement to buy a new house was within a period of one year from the date of sale of old house, and, therefore, the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... capital gain account scheme before filing of return of income which was not so done by the assessee. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) further noted that the assessee had appropriated ₹ 7,62,674/- only towards the construction of new flat after date of transfer of old asset and, therefore, the assessee was entitled to deduction u/s 54 only in respect of payment of ₹ 7,62,674/-. 2.2 Now, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT against the partial confirmation of disallowance by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) and has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. That on facts and circumstances of the case the CIT (A) has erred in not allowing rebate u/s 54 for investment made in residential house prior to date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the date of sale of property and, therefore, there was no requirement for having deposited this amount in the capital gains account scheme. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax(A) vs Bharti Mishra reported in 265 CTR 374 wherein it was held that section 54F(1)(iii) does not specify that construction must begin after the date of sale of old asset and further that on liberal interpretation of the provisions, the assessee could not be denied benefit of section 54F on the ground that construction of house had commenced before sale of asset. 4. In response, the ld. Sr. DR placed reliance on the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A). 5. We have heard the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
