|
II. Direct Tax Case laws:
1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX versus BHARTI MISHRA, ITA No. 567/2013, Date of Order 18.12.2013, High Court of Delhi.
Whether exemption u/s 54F available, where construction of property has commenced before the date of sale of shares.
Held Yes
In J.R.
Subramanya Bhat (supra), Karnataka High Court noticed language of
Section 54 which stipulated that the assessee should within one year
from the date of transfer purchase, or within a period of two years
thereafter, construct a residential house to avail of concession under
the said Section. The contention of the Revenue that construction of the
new building had commenced earlier to the sale of the original asset,
it was observed, cannot bar or prevent the assessee from taking benefit
of Section 54. The requirement of sub-section (4) is that if
consideration was not appropriated towards the purchase of the new asset
one year before date of transfer of the original asset or it was not
utilised for purchase or construction of the new asset before the date
of filing of return under Section 139 of the Act, the balance amount
shall be deposited in an authorized bank account under a scheme notified
by the Central Government. Section 54F is a beneficial provision and is
applicable to an assessee when the old capital asset is replaced by a
new capital asset in form of a residential house. The Supreme Court in
CCE versus Favourite Industries, (2012) 7 SCC 153 has been referred.
(Please click here to view the Judgment).
2. CIT vs. Globus Securities & Finance (Pvt.)Ltd., ITA no. 409/2012, Date of Order : 10.12.2013, High Court of Delhi.
Assessing
Officer should conduct enquiry and carry examination of assessment
records, where the assessee has placed all relevant documents
identifying the share applicants on record.
Assessing
officer had neither conducted any enquiries from the concerned parties
nor did he examine the assessment records of the share applicants and
despite the request of the assessee, he did not issue summons under
Section 131. Assessing officer in the assessment order has not mentioned
or recorded that the assessee had made any request for summoning of the
shareholders or their Directors or principal officers. Whether any such
request was made and if it was made whether it amounts to lapse on the
part of the Assessing Officer, why and for what reasons the assessee was
not able to produce principal officer or Director of shareholder
companies etc. are all aspects which were required to be gone into by
the Tribunal in detail. In the given case, an order of remand/remand
report or additional evidence may be justified or proper. In these
circumstances, we feel that it will be appropriate and proper to pass an
order of remit to the tribunal.
(Please click here to view the Judgment).
|
New User? 
Subscribe Now