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

  • Government

Temporarily blocking public access to Telegram App not disproportionate – Delhi High Court

Temporarily blocking public access to Telegram App under section 69A of IT Act 2000 is not disproportionate - Delhi HC…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

High Court explains the meaning of term ‘enterprise’ appearing in section 80IA

High Court explains the meaning of term ‘enterprise’ appearing in section 80IA to means a project or an undertaking owned…

3 days ago
  • Income Tax

Addition deleted as assessee was only a carrier of cash not owner who came up to own it

Addition deleted as assessee was only a carrier of cash and the real owner had come forward owning the cash…

4 days ago
  • RTI

Lokayukta Police not exempt from disclosure of information under RTI Act 2005 – SC

Lokayukta Police not an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation  and hence not exempt from disclosure of information under RTI Act 2005…

7 days ago
  • Income Tax

Payment of imprest whether a transfer within the meaning of section 269ST

Payment of imprest whether a transfer within the meaning of section 269ST – case remanded for determination In a recent…

1 week ago
  • ICAI

CA Misconduct – Order quashed as judgment not passed by same members who heard arguments.

CA Misconduct – Appellate order quashed as final judgment was not passed by same members who heard arguments. In a…

2 weeks ago