| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 2186 (Hyd-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 45 read with section 54F
Where assessee and others entered into release deed, wherein it was stated that certain concerns purchased property from them and entire sale consideration was paid by said concerns, therefore, irrespective of date when release deed was registered, there was a transfer of shares during relevant previous year (2002-03) as far as assessee was concerned. Further issue as regards deduction under section 54F was remanded back to AO for reconsideration.
|
Capital gains - Year of chargeability - Transfer whether to be construed completed when release deed got registered -
AO alleged that there was transfer of shares during relevant previous year, and he accordingly arrived at capital gain and allowed deduction under section 54F for proportionate investment made up to due date of filing the return of income. Assessee contended that there was no transfer of shares during the financial year 2002-03 relevant to assessment year 2003-04 and therefore no capital gain arose which was taxable. Case of assessee was that release deed was not registered and that property was under litigation. Held: Assessee and other persons shown as owners of property in sale deed signed release deed and therefore, there was no dispute on ownership of the property lying solely with the company. Further, in affidavits filed before High Court, director of company mentioned release deed therein and dispute was with Government and Director of Stamps and Registration and not amongst assessee and others. Further, assessee himself declared capital gain in his return of income and claimed exemption under section 54F. Therefore, irrespective of date when release deed was registered, there was a transfer of shares during the previous year 2002-03 as far as assessee was concerned. Further, assessee claimed that he had invested up to Rs. 45,42,000 before filing of return of income. He filed details of such expenditure before Tribunal by way of additional evidence. Therefore, it was deemed fit and proper to admit such additional evidence and remand it to file of AO for verification of same.
REFERRED : CIT v. K. Ramachandra Rao [ITA No. 47/2014 & ITA 46/2014 (Karn)] : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 1933 (Karn-HC), CIT v. Sardarmal Kothari & Anr. (2008) 302 ITR 286 (Mad) : 2008 TaxPub(DT) 2081 (Mad-HC), Shri Vijay Mahipal v. ITO [ITA 502/Kol/2017 assessment year 2013-14 (Kol)] : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 0533 (Kol-Trib), Smt. Selvi Venkatasubramani v. ITO [ITA No.1052/Bang/2013, dt. 7-10-2015] and Mrs. Seetha Subramanian. v. Asstt. CIT (1996) 59 ITD 94 (Mad) : 1996 TaxPub(DT) 1094 (Mad-Trib).
FAVOUR : Matter remanded.
A.Y. : 2003-04
IN THE ITAT, HYDERABAD BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
OR Try Reload the Page |