Shyamlal Tandon v ITO [IT APPEAL NO.1774 (HYD.) OF 2012 dated 21.0.10214] – Hyderabad ITAT Background: The assessee, an individual, did not file his return of income for the AY 2003-04. From the information received from DDIT(Inv), it came to light that the assessee has earned capital gains, which were not disclosed, and consequently, within the meaning of S.147 of the Act, the AO, held the view that there was escapement of income chargeable to tax. Accordingly a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. In response thereto, assessee filed return declaring ‘nil’ income. Assessment Proceedings During the course of assessment proceedings, it was submitted that the assessee, alongwith his father purchased a piece of land on 17.3.1978 for Rs.34,320. The assessee and his son had demolished the house standing on the above plot and gave the property for development. As per clause (4) of the development agreement, both the father and son were entitled to share the built up area on 50:50 basis in exchange of transfer of the land. However, neither the father nor the son have has declared any long term capital gains on transfer of the land in exchange for 50% of the built up area either in the year in which the development agreement was entered into, relevant to assessment year 2001-02 or in the relevant assessment year in which transfer of 50% of the land and building took place. According to the AO, the long term capital gain worked out to Rs.55,75,661 of which the assessee’s share came to Rs.27,87,831, which was assessable to tax in the assessment year 2001-02.
S. 54F
ITO v SMT BINA GUPTA [ITA No.4074/Del/2012 (dtd 18/10/2013) (Delhi ITAT)] Background: Assessee sold house on 13.06.2008 on which long term capital gain was shown at Rs.31,00,369. Deduction u/s 54 was claimed for entire capital gain on a/c of investment in house. Assessee has also sold a plot at Sradhapuri, Meerut on 10.11.2008 on which Long Term Capital Gain is shown at Rs.19,89,914/-. Deduction u/s 54F has been claimed for this entire amount on a/c of investment in the same houseas mentioned above. The AO found that the assessee had advanced monies to the builder on agreement and deposited money in capital gains scheme. The AO held that since no house had been purchased till the date of assessment order as two years period had lapsed, deduction u/s 54 and 54F was to be disallowed.
Deduction u/s 54-54F allowed if delivery of house could not be obtained but entire payment ...
Sunil Sachdeva v ACIT (IT APPEAL NO. 4179 (DELHI) OF 2011) Delhi ITAT Background: During the course of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer noticed that assessee sold shares of M/s Capital Advertising Pvt. Ltd. for a sale consideration of Rs. 5,62,87,500/-. Assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 1,22,23,250/- u/s. 54F of the I.T. Act. The assessee has invested Rs. 1,22,23,250/- on 31.7.2008 in the special gain account maintained with the Syndicate Bank. The CIT(A) made an enhancement by holding that assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s. 54F(1) on the payment of Rs. 55,70,800/-. This has been denied on the ground that the payment was made by M/s Capital Advertising Pvt. Ltd. wherein the assessee was Director and not by the assessee himself.
Reimbursement of cost of property entitled to 54F deduction – Delhi ITAT
CIT v Gita Duggal ITA No. 1237/2011 (Del HC) dtd 21.02.2013 Background: Assessee was the owner of property in New Delhi comprising of the basement, ground floor, first floor and second floor. On 08.05.2006 she entered into a collaboration agreement with a developer for redeveloping the property. According to its terms, the assessee being desirous of getting the property redeveloped/reconstructed and not being possessed of sufficient finance and lacking in experience in construction, approached the builder to develop the property for and on behalf of the owner at the cost of the builder. The builder was to demolish the existing structure on the plot of land and develop, construct, and/or put up a building consisting of basement, ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor with terrace at its own costs and expenses. In addition to the cost of construction incurred by the builder on development of the property, a further payment of Rs. four crores was payable to the assessee as consideration against the rights of the assessee. The builder was to get the third floor.