FOLLOWING ARE EXHAUSTIVE FAQs ON SECTION 54 AND RELATED ISSUES:
Some Practical Issues
Q. What is Capital Gain Account Scheme?
If the new asset is not acquired up to the date of submission of return of income, then the tax payers will have to deposit money in “Capital Gain Deposit scheme” with a nationalized bank. The proof of deposit should be submitted along with return of income. On the basis of actual investment and the amount deposited in the deposit account, exemption will be given to the tax payer.
Q. Is the relief under section 54 is available to multiple sales & purchases of residential houses?
In case of multiple sale and purchase of residential houses, the exemption cannot be calculated considering the aggregate of capital gain and aggregate of investment in the residential houses. The exemption will be available in relation to each set of sale and corresponding investment in the residential house and the combination which is beneficial to the assessee has to be allowed. [Rajesh Keshav Pillai v. ITO 7 Taxmann.com 11 (Mum.) (2010)]
Q. Whether deduction u/s 54 is available for capital gains arising from sale of more than one house, however the sale proceeds are invested in one house?
There is no restriction placed in section 54 which restricts exemption only in respect of sale of one residential house. Even if assessee sells more than one house in the same year and the capital gains is invested in a new residential house, the claim of exemption cannot be denied if other conditions are fulfilled. [DCIT v. Ranjit Vithaldas [2012] 23 taxmann. com 226 (ITAT-Mum)]
Q. Can assessee claim exemption under section 54 for acquisition of more than one house?
Where more than one residential house is purchased out of the sale proceeds of one residential house, exemption u/s 54 can be claimed only in respect of one house, provided the other conditions of Sec 54 are satisfied.[K.C. Kaushik v ITO 185 ITR 499 (Bom.)(1990)].
In Gulshanbanoo R. Mukhi v. JCIT 83 ITD 649 (ITAT- Mum) (2002),it was held that exemption is allowed only for one flat.
However, two or more residential houses purchased can be classified as one single residential house, the exemption under section 54 can be allowed. Some of the relevant judicial pronouncements are:
Two adjacent residential units but used as one single residential house, exemption allowed. [D. Anand Basappa v. ITO 309 ITR 329 (Kar.) (2009)]
Fact that residential house consists of several independent units cannot be a hindrance to allowance of exemption u/s 54 – Held, yes [Prem Prakash Bhutani Vs. CIT 110 TTJ (Del) 440 (2007)]
Two adjoining flats converted into single residence, exemption allowed. [ACIT v Mrs. Leela P. Nanda 286 ITR (AT) 113 (Mum) (2006)]
Four flats purchased in same building but on different floors because of large size of family, which maintained a common kitchen and a common ration card, exemption allowed. [Vyas (K.G.) v ITO 16 ITD 195 (Bom.)(1 986)]
Allowable in the case of adjacent & contiguous flats.[ITOv. Mrs. Sushila M. Jhaveri 107 ITD 327 (ITAT- Mum. SB)(2007)]
Several self occupied dwelling units which were contiguous and situated in the same compound and within the common boundary having unity of structure should be regarded as one residential house. [Shiv Narain Choudhary v. CWT 108 ITR 104 (All)(1 997)]
More than one units converted into one single house allowed for the purpose of sec. 54F as well. [Neville J. Pereira v. ITO 8 Taxmann. com 68 (Mum. ITAT) (2010)]
Two flats which were not adjacent to each other and were separated from each other by common passage, lobby, staircase, etc., they could not be regarded as a single unit and, therefore, assessee was entitled to benefit of deduction under section 54F in respect of one of those two units. [ACIT vs Sudhakar Ram [2011] 16 taxmann.com 175 (Mum.-ITAT)]
However, the claim for exemption u/s 54 is not admissible in respect of two independent residential houses situated at different locations. [Pawan Arya v. CIT 11 taxmann.com 312 (P&H) [2011]]
Q. Whether the property purchased in the joint name with wife is eligible for exemption u/s 54/54F?
Section 54F mandates that house should be purchased by assessee and it does not stipulate that house should be purchased in name of assessee. Property purchased by assessee in joint name with his wife for ‘shagun’ purpose because of fact that assessee was physically handicapped and the whole consideration was paid by assessee, assessee entitled to exemption u/s 54F. [CIT Vs Ravinder Kumar Arora 15 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi) [2011])]
Other relevant judicial pronouncements
ü Merely because sale deed is in joint name, assessee could not be denied benefit of deduction u/s 54. [DIT v. Mrs. Jennifer Bhide 15 taxmann.com 82 (Kar.) [2011]]
ü House property in the name of HUF sold but new house purchased in the name of Karta and his mother to claim the benefit of sec. 54F. The residential house which is purchased or constructed has to be of the same assessee. [Vipin Malik (HUF) Vs CIT 183 Taxman 296 (Delhi) (2009)]
ü Exemption u/s 54F is allowed only when the new residential property is purchased by the assessee in his own name and not in name of his adopted son. [Prakash v. ITO 173 Taxman 311 (Bom.) [2008]]
ü Sec. 54 clearly says that if the assessee is owner of the property, he is entitled to exemption even if the new property purchased is in the name of his wife but the same is assessed in the hands of the assessee. [CIT v. V. Natarajan 154 Taxman 399 (Mad.) [2006]]
Q. Whether the nexus between capital gain and amount of investment u/s 54 is necessary?
Assessee is not required under the provision for section 54 to establish the nexus between the amount of capital gain and the cost of new asset.
Held that the assessee had initially utilized the sale proceeds on sale of its residential flat in commercial properties and, later on, he purchased two residential flats within a period specified in sub-section (2) of section 54. The Revenue’s main dispute was that the sale proceeds were utilized for purchase of a commercial property and residential house was purchased out of the funds obtained from different sources, as such, the identity of heads has been changed. [Ishar Singh Chawla Vs. CIT 130 TTJ (Mum) (UO) 108 (2010) and Ajit Naswanit Vs. CIT 1127 Taxman 123 (Delhi) (Mag.) (2001)]
Q. To avail exemption u/s 54F, the residential property should be acquired out of personal funds or sale proceeds?
If the assessee constructs or purchases a residential house out of the borrowed funds, he is not eligible for deduction u/s 54F of the Act. If it is not construed in such a manner the object of introduction of the beneficial provisions would be frustrated. The fiscal provisions are to be construed in such a manner, so that its objects of introduction can be achieved. [Milan Sharad Ruparel 005 ITR 0570 (ITAT – Mum) [2010].
However a different view was taken in Bombay Housing Corporation v. Asst. CIT 81 ITD 545 (Bom.-ITAT) (2002), Where assessee utilized the sale consideration for other purposes and borrowed the money for the purpose of purchasing the residential house property to claim exemption under section 54,it was held that the contention that the same amount should have been utilized for the acquisition of new asset could not be accepted.
Other relevant judicial pronouncement:
There is no requirement for claiming exemption under section 54 that same amount of sale consideration should be utilized for acquisition of property, even borrowed funds can be utilized for that purpose. [Prema P. Shah Vs ITO 101 TTJ 849 (Mum-ITAT)(2006)]. Also see J.V. Krishna Raovs DCIT [2012] 24 taxmann.com 104 (Hyd.-ITAT).
Q. Whether exemption under section 54 is allowable if residential units of a house property are purchased from different persons?
Execution of four different sale deeds in respect of four different portions of property did not materially effect nature of transaction or nature of property acquired since property in question was being used by assessee for her own purposes and investment made in purchase of same was, therefore, eligible for deduction under section 54.[CIT V. Sunita Aggarwal (2006) 284 ITR 20(Del)]
In CIT vs Smt. Jyothi K. Mehta [2011] 12 taxmann.com 440 (Kar.), it was also held that the fact that the assessee could not have purchased both the flats in one single sale deed or could not have narrated the purchase of two premises as one unit in the sale deed could not make any difference. The two flats purchased were situated side by side. Builder also stated that he had effected modifications to the flats to make them one unit by opening the door in between the two apartments.
Q Whether exemption u/s 54 can be claimed on the basis of a mud structure?
Exemption u/s 54 cannot be allowed for sale of a mud structure whereupon there was never any structure fitting to be described as “habitable residential house”. [M.B. Ramesh vs ITO 320 ITR 451 (Kar.) [2010]]
Q Whether benefit u/s 54(1) is available in case of sale of land adjoining to the building?
The land appurtenant to the building means that the ownership of building and land appurtenant should be of same person. If building is owned by one person and land is owned by another, it will be the case of land adjoining to the building and by no stretch of imagination it can be called land appurtenant to the said building and therefore, benefit of section 54(1) would not be available to such land adjoining to a building. [P.K. Lahri v. CIT 146 Taxman 349 (ALL.)(2005)]
Q Is it necessary that a person should reside in the house to call it a residential house.
The popular meaning of words ‘residential house’ is a place or building used for habitation of people. It is not necessary that a person should reside in a house to call it a residential house. If it is capable of being used for the purpose of residence than the requirement of the section 54F is satisfied and benefit could not be denied. [Amit Gupta v. DCIT 6 SOT 403 (Delhi)(2006) & Mahavir Prasad Gupta 5 SOT 353 (Del)(2006)]
Q Can the assessee claim exemption under section 54 in respect of investment in modification or renovation of the existing house?
Exemption is available only when the investment is in the consideration of a house and not for investment in modification or renovation. Admitted facts are that the assessee had a fairly big house to which the assessee made addition of 140 sq. meters of plinth area. However, it is the conceded position that the assessee has not constructed any separate apartment or house. Section 54F does not provide for exemption on investment in renovation or modification of an existing house. On the other hand, construction of a house only qualifies for exemption on the investment. Even addition of a floor of a self contained type to the existing house would have qualified for exemption. However, since the assessee has only made addition to the plinth area, which is in the form of modification of an existing house, she is not entitled to deduction claimed u/s 54F of the Act. [Mrs. Meera Jacob vs ITO 313 ITR 411 (Kerala) (date of order 9/06/2008)]
Q Whether exemption under section 54 is allowable for addition of floor to the existing house from the sale proceeds of residential house sold?
Assessee owned two residential houses. He sold one house and utilized its sale proceeds to construct first floor on his second house after demolishing old structure, in this case exemption will be allowable under section 54. [CIT vs P.V. Narsimhan [1989] 47 Taxman 89 (Mad.)
However, in CIT v. V. Pradeep Kumar [2007] 290 ITR 90/ [2006] 153 Taxman 138 (Mad.), it was held that a mere extension of existing building would not give benefit to assessee under section 54F. Section 54F emphasizes construction of residential house and such construction must be real one and should not be a symbolic construction. Followed by ACIT vs T.N. Gopal [2009] 121 ITD 352 (Chennai-ITAT) (TM)
Q Whether the expenditure to make a residential house habitable will be included in the cost of new asset?
The words used about the amount spent on purchase of new asset are ‘cost thereto’ and not ‘price thereto’. The cost includes purchase as well. Consequently, the words used signify that the amount of purchase will include other necessary expenditure in this behalf to make a residential house habitable and taken together that will be the cost of the new asset. The Tribunal had perused the items of the report of the architect. The residential house was in a state of general disrepair and was inhabitable. Consequently, the necessary repairs carried out to make the same habitable would constitute part of the cost of new house. [Gulshanbanoo R. Mukhi v. JCIT 83 ITD 649 (ITAT- Mum) (2002)]
Q Whether exemption under section 54F would be allowable where assessee is already a co-owner of another flat?
The word ‘own’ appearing in section 54F includes only such residential house which is fully and wholly owned by one person and not a residential house owned by more than one person. The assessee was already a co-owner of another flat. Being a co-owner, assessee was not the absolute owner of another residential flat, and exemption under section 54F could be denied on this ground. [ITO vs Rasiklal N. Satra [2006] 98 ITD 335 (Mum.-ITAT)]
Q Whether determination of title to the property would commence from the first date of allotment or the subsequent date of allotment of the actual flat number and delivery of possession for the purpose of assessing long term capital gains.
Title to the property is transferred with the issuance of the allotment letter and payment of installments is only a follow up action and taking of the delivery of possession is only a formality. [Vinod Kumar Jain Vs CIT TIOL706-P&H (2010)]
Q Whether exemption under section 54 would be allowable where residential house property is purchased within time limit specified under section 139(4)?
The due date for furnishing return of income as per section 139(1) is subject to extended period provided under sub-section (4) of section 139 and, if a person had not furnished return of previous year within time allowed under sub-section (1), assessee could file return under subsection (4) before expiry of one year from end of relevant assessment year. Therefore, section 54 deduction could not be denied to assessee on this count. [CIT v. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal 15 taxmann.com 146 (P & H) (2011)]. Also see ITO vs Smt. Sapana Dimri [2012] 19 taxmann.com 15 (Delhi), Kishore H. Galaiyavs ITO [2012] 24 taxmann.com 11 (Mum.)