Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)
Smt. Sheela Sharma, Ajmer vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-2-2, Ajmer on 25 October, 2018 cites

Jag Mohan Sharma, Jaipur vs Ito, Jaipur on 13 March, 2018

7. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The existing immovable property was sold by the assessee on 17/02/2011 and thereafter the assessee has deposited the entire sale consideration in the fixed deposit with the State Bank of India, thus, it is clear that the assessee has not utilized the said consideration of the existing asset for any other purpose but the same was kept in the FDR with the bank and thereafter the assessee purchased the new residential house on 06/2/2013. The purchase of the new house on 06/2/2013 has not been disputed by the Assessing Officer but the claim of deduction U/s 54/54F of the Act was denied on the ground that the assessee has not deposited the amount in the capital gain account scheme. At the outset we note that the assessee has satisfied the substantial and primary condition of investment of the sale consideration in purchase of new residential house within a period of two years from the date of transfer of the existing asset. Once the assessee has satisfied the substantial requirement for claim of deduction U/s 54/54F of the Act then the non-deposit of the amount in the capital gain account scheme but depositing the same in the fixed FDR with the SBI would not disentitle the assessee of the claim U/s 54/54F of the Act. The Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Jag Mohan Sharma Vs ITO in ITA No. 5 ITA 907/JP/2018_ Sheela Sharma Vs ITO 1089/JP/2016 vide order dated 13/3/2018 has considered an identical issue in para 5 of the order as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 10 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Shri Sardarmal Kothari on 17 June, 2008

"5. As regards the non deposit of the amount in the Capital Gain Account Scheme, we note that the assessee has sold the agricultural land on 30th November, 2012 and the house was purchased on 30.10.2014. Therefore, the investment made by the assessee is within two years from the sale of the existing asset and is not beyond the stipulated period as provided under section 54F of the Act. The only objection raised by the AO and ld. CIT (A) is non deposit of amount in the Capital Gain Account Scheme. However, when the assessee has invested the amount within the stipulated period as provided under the provisions of section 54F, then the substantial requirement as per section 54F(1) is satisfied. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sardarmal Kothari (supra) has held in para 4 as under :-
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 69 - Full Document
1