Income-tax Officer (IT)–4(3)(1), Mumbai v. Meera Venkatraman
[Citation -2019-LL-0924-56]

Citation 2019-LL-0924-56
Appellant Name Income-tax Officer (IT)–4(3)(1), Mumbai
Respondent Name Meera Venkatraman
Court ITAT-Mumbai
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 24/09/2019
Assessment Year 2013-14
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags low tax effect • new asset • capital gain • accrue or arise in india • benefit of exemption • non-resident • transfer of asset • asset located outside india • clarificatory in nature
Bot Summary: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the investment in a new asset in the USA is entitled for benefit under section 54 of the IT Act in relation to capital gains arising in India to the assessee 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in failing to appreciate that the charging section of the Act in form of section 4 does not contain the words in India and neither do the charging sections for different 'Heads of Income' in form of sections 15, 22, 28, 45 and 56 and in case of non-residents, the words in India is read into them by way of section 5(2) of the Act 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in failing to appreciate that section 54 is a part of the charging section 45 in case of capital gains and thus qualifies the charge itself and hence cannot imply explicitly the words in India as it applies to both residents and non-residents 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in failing to appreciate that benefit under section 54 is not a deduction but a provision qualifying the charge itself whereas all the sections providing for deductions under different Heads of Income are separate from the respective charging sections 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the temporal conditions laid down in section 54(1)(ii) on transfer of the new asset when applied to that asset being situated outside India would lead to section 45 of the Act having taxing jurisdiction over income arising outside India in the case of the non- resident resulting in a contradiction vis-a-vis section 5(2) of the Act 6. Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2014 in section 54 of the IT Act, 1961 is only clarificatory in nature in case of residents, as in case of non-residents the words in India were already intrinsically operating by way of provisions of section 5(2) of the Act 3. We have heard the submissions and perused the grounds of appeal in this appeal.


IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH D , MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, HON BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 5702/MUM/2018 (A.Y 2013-14) Income Tax Officer (IT) 4(3)(1) v. Smt Meera Venkatraman R.No. 1625, 16th Floor C/o. Jaina Thanawala Air India Building, Nariman Point Chartered Accountant Mumbai 400 021 11, Pritam, 11th Road, Khar (W) Mumbai 400 052 PAN No: AOAPV9606B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri R.K. Agrawal Department by Smt Jothilakshmi Nayak Date of hearing 24.09.2019 Date of pronouncement 24.09.2019 ORDER PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) This appeal is filed by Revenue against order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-58, Mumbai [hereinafter in short Ld.CIT(A) ] in Appeal No. CIT(A)-58, Mumbai/10579/2017-18 dated 17.07.2018 for Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Revenue has raised following grounds in its appeal:- 2 ITA No. 5702/MUM/2018 (A.Y: 2013-14) Smt Meera Venkatraman 1. "Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that investment in new asset in USA is entitled for benefit under section 54 of IT Act in relation to capital gains arising in India to assessee?" 2. "Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in failing to appreciate that charging section of Act in form of section 4 does not contain words "in India" and neither do charging sections for different 'Heads of Income' in form of sections 15, 22, 28, 45 and 56 and in case of non-residents, words "in India" is read into them by way of section 5(2) of Act?" 3. "Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in failing to appreciate that section 54 is part of charging section 45 in case of capital gains and thus qualifies charge itself and hence cannot imply explicitly words "in India" as it applies to both residents and non-residents?" 4. "Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in failing to appreciate that benefit under section 54 is not deduction but provision qualifying charge itself whereas all sections providing for deductions under different Heads of Income are separate from respective charging sections?" 5. "Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating temporal conditions laid down in section 54(1)(ii) on transfer of new asset when applied to that asset being situated outside India would lead to section 45 of Act having taxing jurisdiction over income arising outside India in case of non- resident resulting in contradiction vis-a-vis section 5(2) of Act?" 6. "Whether on facts and in circumstance of case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2014 in section 54 of IT Act, 1961 is only clarificatory in nature in case of residents, as in case of non-residents words "in India" were already intrinsically operating by way of provisions of section 5(2) of Act?" 3. At time of hearing, Authorized Representative of assessee submitted that tax effect on issue in present appeal is .43,90,140/ which is below .50 Lacs and in view of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 in F.No.279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ (Pt), appeal of Revenue is not maintainable. 3 ITA No. 5702/MUM/2018 (A.Y: 2013-14) Smt Meera Venkatraman 4. Departmental Representative also agreed with above submission of Authorized Representative of assessee. 5. We have heard submissions and perused grounds of appeal in this appeal. We find that tax effect in this appeal is less than .50 Lakhs and therefore appeal of Revenue is not maintainable on account of low tax effect in view of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019. Hence this appeal is dismissed. 6. In result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed. Order Pronounced in Open Court on 24th September, 2019. Sd/- Sd/- (N.K. PRADHAN) (C.N. PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai / Dated 24/09/2019 Giridhar, Sr.PS Copy of Order forwarded to 1. Appellant 2. Respondent. 3. CIT(A), Mumbai. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. BY ORDER, (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mum Income-tax Officer (IT)4(3)(1), Mumbai v. Meera Venkatraman
Report Error