Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (10) TMI 1270

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... onsidered in the subsequent decision in the case of Coromandel Industries Ltd. [ 2014 (12) TMI 852 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and the Hon ble High Court had held that exemption of Rs.50 Lakhs each claimed in two financial years, within six months period from the date of transfer of capital asset, was eligible for exemption u/s 54EC Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Atushbhai B. Amin [ 2017 (3) TMI 890 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] held that the investment of Rs.1 Crore claimed in two financial years was allowable as deduction. CIT(A) was not correct in holding that the assessee was eligible for deduction of Rs.50 Lakhs only u/s. 54EC of the Act. As the assessee had fulfilled all the necessary conditions as stipulated in Section 54EC of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . CIT(A) vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 4. Now, the assessee is in second appeal before us and has taken the following grounds in this appeal: (1) That on facts and in law the learned NFAC has grievously erred in confirming the disallowance of claim of deduction of Rs. 50,00,000/- made u/s 54EC of the Act. (2) That on facts, and as per the law prevailing in the year under appeal, the entire claim of deduction u/s 54EC of the Act ought to have been allowed as prayed for. 5. Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ld. AR appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessee had sold an immovable property for a consideration of Rs.31 Crore on 25.01.2012 along with two other co-owners. The capital gain arising on the sale o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... C. Jaichander, [2015] 53 taxmann.com 466 (Madras). He further submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal has also taken identical view in the case of Shri Atushbhai B. Amin vs. JCIT in ITA No.915/Ahd/2014, dated 16.03.2017. 6. Per contra, Smt. Mamta Singh, the Ld. SR. DR submitted that the limit of Rs.50 Lakhs in the investment of bonds as stipulated u/s.54EC of the Act was cumulative investment in respect of each transaction of transfer of long term capital asset. She contended that the law doesn t envisage differential treatment on the basis of date of transfer. She explained that the situation of investment in two financial years will arise only if the transfer was effected after 30th September. In the case where the asset was tra .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the asset is transferred or in the subsequent financial year, should not exceed fifty lakh rupees. It is, thus, found that this cap of total investment of Rs.50 Lakhs was not applicable in the current year and as per the scheme of the Act the assessee was entitled to make investment of Rs. 50 lakh each in two financial years, within the outer limit of six months from the date of transfer of the asset. The second proviso was introduced precisely to eliminate the differential treatment on the basis of date of transfer. However, this amendment was only from 01.04.2015 onwards and can t be extended to the current year as the legislature had not provided for retrospective application to the second proviso. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the di .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ong-term specified asset by an assessee during any financial year does not exceed fifty lakh rupees. In other words, as per the mandate of Section 54EC(1) of the Act, the time limit for investment is six month and the benefit that flows from the first proviso is that if the assessee makes the investment of Rs.50,00,000/- in any financial year, it would have the benefit of Section 54EC(1) of the Act. 9. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal has also held in the case of Shri Atushbhai B. Amin (supra) that the investment of Rs.1 Crore claimed in two financial years was allowable as deduction. 10. In view of the above facts and the judicial pronouncements, we are of the considered opinion that Ld. CIT(A) was not correct in holding that the ass .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates