CIT vs. B. S. Shantakumari (Karnataka High Court)S. 54F is a beneficial provision & must be interpreted liberally. It does not require that the construction of the new residential house has to be completed, and the house be habitable, within 3 years of the transfer of the old asset. It is sufficient if the funds are invested in the new house property within the time limit
The essence of s. 54F is to ensure that assessee who received capital gains would invest same by constructing a residential house and once it is established that consideration so received on transfer of his Long Term capital asset has invested in constructing a residential house, it would satisfy the ingredients of Section 54F If the assessee is able to establish that he had invested the entire net consideration within the stipulated period, it would meet the requirement of Section 54F and as such, assessee would be entitled to get the benefit of Section 54F of the Act
S. 17(3)(iii): Amount received by prospective employee for loss of employment offer is a capital receipt and is neither taxable as "salary" or as "other sources"
In other words, Section 17(3)(iii)(A) pre-supposes the existence of an employment, i.e., a relationship of employee and employer between the Assessee and the person who makes the payment of “any amount” in terms of Section 17(3)(iii) of the Act. Likewise, Section 17(3)(iii)(B) also pre-supposes the existence of the relationship of employer and employee between the person who makes the payment of the amount and the Assessee. It envisages the amount being received by the Assessee “after cessation of his employment”. Therefore, the words in Section 17(3)(iii) cannot be read disjunctively to overlook the essential facet of the provision, viz., the existence of ‘employment’ i.e. a relationship of employer and employee between the person who makes the payment of the amount and the Assessee
S. 14A Rule 8D does not apply to shares held as stock-in-trade. AO cannot apply Rule 8D to make a disallowance without showing how the assessee's disallowance is wrong
The AO has not examined the accounts of the assessee and there is no satisfaction recorded by the AO about the correctness of the claim of the assessee and without the same he invoked Rule 8D of the Rules. While rejecting the claim of the assessee with regard to expenditure or no expenditure, as the case may be, in relation to exempted income, the AO has to indicate cogent reasons for the same. From the facts of the present case it is noticed that the AO has not considered the claim of the assessee and straight away embarked upon computing