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.
Similar Judgment: Amritsar ITAT allows deduction u/s 54B for investment in wife’s name Click Here >>
Empanelment to act as ICAI exam observers for January 2027 CA Examination. Last date to apply is 20.11.2026 Empanelment of…
No arrest under GST- Major decision taken in 57th Meeting of the GST Council on 8th October 2026 PRESS RELEASE…
A subsequent Apex Court ruling on the substantive issue cannot retrospectively make an act done in compliance of a binding…
Interest payment on mobilisation advance to NHAI not liable for deduction of tax at source u/s 194A - ITAT Interest…
Typographical error in turnover declared in ITR was not as a mistake apparent from the record u/s 154 when AO…
Ground taken by assessee that he was not aware of the order cannot be brushed aside so lightly in absence…