INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 54F

Capital gains - Deduction under section 54F - Property purchased which was located outside India -

Assessee was aggrieved by order of revenue that he was not entitled to deduction under section 54/54F because the new asset purchased was outside India (Texas). Held: In the case of Arshia Basith [2018 TaxPub(DT) 5650 (Bang-Trib)] the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal held that assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 54F even in respect of property purchased which is located outside India. In case of assessee the deduction claimed should be examined in the parameters of section 54F in light of decision cited. AO was directed to apply ratio laid down in said decision and allow claim of deduction of assessee in accordance with the law.

Followed:Arshia Basith [2018 TaxPub(DT) 5650 (Bang-Trib)]

REFERRED : Smt. Tarulata Shyam & Ors. v. CIT 1977 TaxPub(DT) 0899 (SC); CIT v. TV Sundaram Iyengar and Sons (P) Ltd. 1975 TaxPub(DT) 0334 (SC); CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC) : 1973 TaxPub(DT) 0421 (SC); CIT v. Sodra Devi 1957 TaxPub(DT) 0146 (SC); Asstt. CIT v. Jai Kumar Gupta (HUF) [ITA No. 5303/Mum/2017, dated 28-2-2019] : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 1757 (Mum-Trib); Mrs. S. Suma v. ITO [ITA No. 568/Bang/2018, dated 20-7-2018] : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 4892 (Bang-Trib); ACIT v. Shri Iqbal Jafar 2014 TaxPub(DT) 3476 (Luck-Trib); Vinay Mishra v. Asstt. CIT 2013 TaxPub(DT) 0065 (Bang-Trib); ITO v. Dr. Girish M. Shah [ITA No.3582/Mum/2009, dt. 17-2-2010]; Mrs. Prema P. Shah v. ITO 2006 TaxPub(DT) 1019 (Mum-Trib); Leena J. Shah v. Asstt. CIT (2006) 6 SOT 721 (Ahd.) : 2006 TaxPub(DT) 0917 (Ahd-Trib)

FAVOUR : Matter remanded

A.Y. :

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT