9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 563X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0,000/- which was confirmed by the CIT(A). Therefore, in terms of the decision in the case of Humayun Suleman Merchant [ 2016 (9) TMI 70 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] that the assessee is entitled to claim proportionate deduction as evident from receipts which are payments made towards new property and also the said payments were made before filing of return of income. Admittedly, the return of income was filed on 31-07-2014 which is evident from para 1 of the impugned order. Thus, the assessee is entitled to get deduction of Rs.11,00,000/- u/s. 54F of the Act as against the entire disallowance of Rs.25,00,000/-. Thus, ground Nos. 3 and 4 raised by the assessee are allowed. Denying exemption u/s. 54B - enhancement made by the CIT(A) - disall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re no adjudication. 3. The ld. AR submits that the assessee is not interested to prosecute ground Nos. 2, 6 and 7. Accordingly, the same are dismissed as not pressed. 4. Ground Nos. 3 and 4 raised by the assessee are relating to denial of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act. 5. I note that the assessee is an HUF, derives income from business, capital gains and from other sources. According to the AO, the assessee s share declared at 21% from profit from the business i.e. housing project under the name and style as Shriram Residency . The assessee shown long term capital gain of Rs.1,05,85,572/-. The assessee claimed for Rs.25,00,000/- deduction u/s. 54F of the Act. In support its claim, the assessee furnished copy of agreement for sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Assessing Officer has rightly computed the deduction u/s. 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961, restricting the investment in the new asset at Rs.35,00,000/- and thus restricting the exemption u/s. 54F of the Act proportionately to the amount invested? The brief facts before the Hon ble High Court were that the AO determined net consideration at Rs.75.39 lakhs, but allowed proportionate exemption of Rs.31.55 lakhs which was paid till the filing of return from capital gain in terms of section 54F of the Act. The AO disallowed the balance consideration and brought to tax under the head capital gains on account of assessee s failure to deposit the unutilized consideration for purchase of new fl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s share at 21% of profit from housing project i.e. Shriram Residency which is evident from para 4 of the assessment order. Therefore, there is no dispute with regard to capital gain arising from housing project i.e. Shriram Residency. Therefore, in my opinion, the assessee is entitled to proportionate deduction to the extent investment made in a new property up to the filing of return of income. I note that the AO disallowed entire claim made u/s. 54F of the Act to the extent of Rs.25,00,000/- which was confirmed by the CIT(A). Therefore, in terms of the decision of Hon ble High Court of Bombay, that the assessee is entitled to claim proportionate deduction as evident from receipts at pages 126 to 128 of the paper book, which are payments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g purchased agricultural land in individual capacity and allowed to an extent of Rs.8,64,335/-. Thereby, the CIT(A) enhanced the total income of the assessee to an extent of Rs.72,21,240/-. Before me, the ld. AR placed on record the order of Surat Bench of Tribunal in the case of Babubhai Arjanbhai Kanani (HUF) reported in 130 taxmann.com 112 (Surat-Trib.) The relevant portions of the said decision of Surat Bench Tribunal are as under : 12. Now coming to the assessee`s case under consideration, in the light of the above noted judicial precedents, we note that entire purchase consideration for agricultural land was paid by utilizing money of HUF. We note that Purchase Deed is in the name of the Coparcener ( one of the HUF members). Howe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court of Rajasthan in the case of Laxmi Narayan reported in 402 ITR 117 (Raj.) held that where assessee had purchased new agricultural land out of sale consideration of his agricultural land, assessee could not be denied deduction u/s. 54B of the Act merely because registered document of new land was executed in name of his wife. On perusal of para 12 of the said order of Surat Bench of Tribunal which held the HUF is owner of the said agricultural land though it is registered in the name of the coparcener, as the HUF is enjoying all the benefits of the said agricultural land. Admittedly, in the present case, the assessee being an HUF purchased agricultural land to an extent of Rs.72,21,240/- in individual capacity. The copy of said purch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
