| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2008 SLG 3998 2008 SLD 3998 (2008) 302 ITR 286 |
Madras High Court
TAX CASE (APPEAL) Nos. 354 AND 355 OF 2008 JUNE 17, 2008
K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN AND P.P.S., JANARTHANA RAJA, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
TAX CASE (APPEAL) Nos. 354 AND 355 OF 2008 JUNE 17, 2008
K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN AND P.P.S., JANARTHANA RAJA, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Commissioner of IncomE tax
v.
Sardarmal Kothari
Law:
Section:
Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Exemption of, in case of investment in residential house In order to get benefit under section 54F, assessee need not complete construction of house and occupy same [A Y 2001-02] In order to get the benefit under section 54F, the assessee need not complete the construction of the house and occupy the same. Circular No. 667, dated 18-10-1993 ([1993] 204 ITR (St.) 103) would not in any way advance the case of the revenue to come to the conclusion that in order to have the benefit under section 54F, the construction should have been completed. CASE REVIEW D.P. Mehta v. CIT[2001] 251 ITR 529 (Delhi)distinguished. J. Naresh Kumar for the Appellant. JUDGMENT K. Raviraja Pandian, J.- The relevant assessment year is 2001-02. The assessees, Shri Sardarmal Kothari and Shri Shanthilal Kothari, filed their respective returns of income admitting a total income of Rs. 3,02,593 apart from the agricultural income of Rs. 25,000 each. The assessees have claimed exemption of capital gain tax under section 54F of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer rejected the same on the ground that the construction was not completed when he made a personal visit. Against that order, the assessees preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who allowed the appeals by holding that the assessees have invested the capital gains in the land and substantially completed the construction and directed the Assessing Officer to grant the benefit to the assessees. Against that order, the Department preferred appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal has confirmed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeals. The correctness of the said orders is now canvassed in these appeals by formulating the following questions of law: "1.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessees are entitled for exemption under section 54F of the Income-tax Act is valid? 2.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding, when theβ¦
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492