Amitabh Bansal v. ITO – [2019] 102 taxmann.com 229 (Delhi – Trib.)

The Delhi ITAT held that statement issued by bank to its account holders couldn’t be elevated to status of books maintained by assessee within meaning of section 2(12A) and section 44AA .

Further, credit in bank account simply or any other raw information available to Assessing Officer (AO) couldn’t be loosely called as books of account under section 68. Therefore, invocation of section 68 sans valid and proper books of account of assessee was invalid. Accordingly, addition made by AO as sustained by Commissioner(Appeals) was incorrect and liable to be reversed

Date of holding property to be taken from date on which lease-cum-sale agreement holder paid entire consideration

Bhatkal Ramarao Prakash v. ITO – [2019] 102 taxmann.com 145 (Bangalore – Trib.)

Assessee acquired a property from a building society under a lease-cum-sale agreement dated 22-3-2001. As per terms of agreement, he had to construct building on site within two years from date of agreement and assessee could not alienate site for a period of 10 years.

Assessee complied with aforesaid terms of lease-cum-sale agreement and claimed completion of construction on site on date of agreement and subsequently property was conveyed to assessee by society by registered sale deed dated 31-8-2014.

Assessee sold site as well as building constructed thereon and computed long-term capital gain on sale of this property by taking date of lease-cum-sale agreement as 22-3-2001 as date of acquisition of property. He invested capital gain in acquisition of another property and claimed deduction under section 54F.

Assessing Officer (AO) treated date of acquisition of property by assessee as on 31-8-2014, construed capital gain as a short-term capital gain and disallowed sec. 54F exemption.

The ITAT held that claim of assessee that it held property from 22-3-2001 had to be accepted as he paid for property entire cost of site and was in possession of property as lessee-cum-Agreement holder with right to obtain conveyance of absolute interest over land that was leased out as early out as in 22-3-2001. Therefore, capital gain had to be treated as LTCG as claimed by him

No denial of exemption just because trust failed to specify purpose of accumulation of funds in Form 10

CIT v. Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purshottam Public Charitable Trust – [2019] 102 taxmann.com 122 (Gujarat)

The Gujarat High Court held that lack of declaration in Form No. 10 regarding specific purpose for which funds were being accumulated by assessee-trust won’t be fatal to exemption claimed under section 11(2).

Thus, in case where assessee had passed a formal resolution, in response to enquiry raised by Assessing Officer, specifying that funds were set apart for ongoing hospital projects of trust and for modernization of existing hospitals, it was to be regarded as sufficient compliance of requirements of the Act.

Therefore, assessee’s claim for exemption under section 11(2) in respect of funds accumulated was to be allowed.