Income Tax

Deduction us 54B for land purchased in wife’s name disallowed by ITAT following the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court.

Deduction us 54B for land purchased in wife’s name disallowed by ITAT following the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 1163 (2017) (03) ITAT

Assessment Year : 2007-08
Date/Month of Pronouncement: February 2017

Brief Facts of the Case:
The appellant assessee sold certain land on which long term capital gain was earned. The assessee purchased, inter alia, an agricultural land in the name of his wife. The Assessing Officer (‘AO’) denied the benefit of deduction under section 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for the purchase of the agricultural land in the name of his wife.

The CIT(A) affirmed the disallowance. The assessee, aggrieved against the denial of deduction u/s 54B came to the Tribunal.

Observations made by the Tribunal:
The Tribunal observed that there was no dispute that the new land was purchased by the assessee in the name of his wife. It was observed that there was a cleavage of opinion amongst the Hon’ble High Courts on the question of grant of benefit u/s 54B etc. when the new property is purchased by the transferor in his own name with another or exclusively in the name of another.

It was noted that the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in had held that the benefit of deduction cannot be allowed when a new property is purchased in the name of wife, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court had held that deduction u/s 54F cannot be denied if the property is not purchased in own name.

Held:
Since the assessee fall within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, it was held that the assessee was not right in claiming the benefit of section 54B in purchasing new property in the name of his wife.

Download Full Judgment

Similar Judgment: Amritsar ITAT allows deduction u/s 54B for investment in wife’s name Click Here >>

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

Non-deduction of TDS does not make transaction as unexplained in the hands of deductee – ITAT

Mere non-deduction of TDS by the deductor on a transaction does not change the character of the transaction to make…

5 hours ago
  • ICAI

Last date to submit MEF 2026-27 extended to 09.09.2026

ICAI has extended the last date to online submit Multipurpose Empanelment Form (MEF)- 2026-27 from 29th August 2026 to 9th…

8 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Validity of demand u/s 156 for default u/s 115-O, if assessment order u/s 143(3) has Nil demand

Can a demand notice be issued u/s 156 for non-payment of Dividend tax u/s 115-O, when as per assessment order…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Issue already examined and adjudicated by CIT(Appeals), can’t be reopened on same set of facts

The issue already examined and adjudicated by the quasi-judicial authority, i.e., CIT(Appeals), cannot be reopened on the same set of…

3 days ago
  • Income Tax

TDS can’t be denied for non deposit of tax deducted by the deductor – High Court

One TDS is deducted, credit has to follow, failure of deductor to deposit the amount to the credit of the…

4 days ago
  • Income Tax

Cash withdrawal from bank can’t be taxed u/s 69C as unexplained expenditure – ITAT

Merely because assessee did not explain purpose of cash withdrawal from bank, it can not be taxed u/s 69C as…

4 days ago