| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 3522 (Karn-HC) : (2021) 276 TAXMAN 0068 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 54F
Residential property, for which investment was made needed to be situated in India for the purpose of claiming exemption under section 54F from assessment year 2015-16 only and not prior to that period and where investment in a residential house was made in USA prior to 01-04-2015, whereas, the requirement of making an investment in a residential house, which was incorporated by way of amendment, came into force w.e.f. 01-04-2015, therefore, exemption could not be denied to assessee.
|
Capital gain - Exemption under section 54F - Investment made in the house property in USA - Scope of amendment incorporated in section 54F(1)
Assessee was a Director of M/s M and return of income was processed under section 143(1) and the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice was issued. AO denied the exemption under section 54F with regard to investment made in residential property holding that exemption was not available for investment in property made outside India and made addition accordingly. Held: Residential property, for which investment is made needs to be situated in India for the purpose of claiming exemption under section 54F from assessment year 2015-16 only and not prior to that period. In the instant case, the investment in a residential house was made in USA prior to 01-04-2015, whereas, requirement of making an investment in a residential house, which was incorporated by way of amendment, came into force w.e.f. 01-04-2015. It is well settled legal principles as well as memorandum of objects of Finance Act, 2014, which clearly provide that amendments will take effect from 01-04-2015 and will apply to assessment year 2015-16 onwards as well as the CBDT's Circular dated 21-01-2015. Therefore, exemption could not be denied to assessee.
Followed:Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. Dilip Kumar & Company & Ors. 2018 69 GST 239 (SC) : 2018 TaxPub(EX) 737 (SC), CIT v. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 3934 (SC), GovindDas & Ors. v. ITO & Anr. (1976) 1 SCC 906 : 1976 TaxPub(DT) 623 (SC), The CIT v. Anurag Pandit [I.T.A No. 1169/2018 Dated 14-5-2019 (New Del)] : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 3729 (Del-H), Leena Jugalkishor Shah v. ACIT (2016) 392 ITR 18 (Guj) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 3543 (Guj-HC), Dipankar Mohan Ghosh C/o R.N. Marwah And Co. (2018) 401 ITR 129 (AAR-NEW DEL) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 307 (AAR) and Vinay Mishra v. ACIT 2013 TaxPub(DT) 65 (Bang-Trib). Relied: CIT v. Sarkar Builders (2015) 7 SCC 579 : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 2156 (SC) and Reliance Jute & Industries Limited v. CIT AIR 1980 SC 251 : 1979 TaxPub(DT) 1092 (SC).
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2009-10
IN THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|