{"id":4481,"date":"2012-03-08T16:02:46","date_gmt":"2012-03-08T16:02:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=4481"},"modified":"2012-03-09T06:55:35","modified_gmt":"2012-03-09T06:55:35","slug":"chanchal-kumar-sircar-vs-ito-itat-kolkota-s-54ec-investment-time-limit-begins-from-date-of-receipt-of-consideration","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/chanchal-kumar-sircar-vs-ito-itat-kolkota-s-54ec-investment-time-limit-begins-from-date-of-receipt-of-consideration\/","title":{"rendered":"Chanchal Kumar Sircar vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkota)"},"content":{"rendered":"<table width=\"150\" border=\"0\" align=\"right\">\n<tr>\n<td><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=645\" onclick=\"if (event.button==0) \r\n     setTimeout(function () { window.location = 'http:\/\/itatonline.org\/downloads.php?varname=dl_id=645&varname2=chanchal_sirkar_54EC_time_limit_investment.pdf'; }, 100)\" ><strong>Click here to download the judgement (chanchal_sirkar_54EC_time_limit_investment.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong><br \/>\nS. 54EC investment time limit begins from date of receipt of consideration <\/p>\n<p><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The assessee entered into an agreement and handed over possession to the buyer which constituted a &#8220;transfer&#8221;. The consideration received from the buyer was invested by the assessee in s. 54EC Bonds <em>beyond 6 months from the date of transfer though within 6 months from the date of receipt of the consideration<\/em>. The Tribunal had to consider whether in view of the language of s. 54EC that the consideration had to be invested in the specified bonds within 6 months of the date of transfer, the relief could be allowed. HELD by the Tribunal:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>In a case where the consideration for the transfer was received several months after the date of transfer, <strong>the period of 6 months for making deposit u\/s 54EC should be reckoned from the date of actual receipt of the consideration<\/strong>. If the period is reckoned from the date of agreement and receipt of part payment at the first instance, it would lead to an <strong>impossible situation<\/strong> by asking assessee to invest money in specified asset before actual receipt of the same. Also, <strong>s. 54EC requires the &#8220;consideration&#8221; to be invested. If the consideration is not received, there is no question of investing it<\/strong> (S. Gopal Reddy 181 ITR 378 (AP), Janardhan Dass 299 ITR 210 (All) Darapaneni Chenna Krishnayya 291 ITR 98 (AP) (<em>compulsory acquisition cases<\/em>) followed). <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<div class=\"journal2\">\nSee the contra view in <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/f\/o.php?url=http:\/\/www.indiankanoon.org\/doc\/668419\/\">Jyotindra H. Shodhan vs. ITO<\/a><\/strong> 87 ITD 312 (Ahd)(SB)<br \/>\n<\/strong>\n<\/div>\n<p><!--\n\n\n\n\n\n\/\/--><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In a case where the consideration for the transfer was received several months after the date of transfer, <strong>the period of 6 months for making deposit u\/s 54EC should be reckoned from the date of actual receipt of the consideration<\/strong>. If the period is reckoned from the date of agreement and receipt of part payment at the first instance, it would lead to an <strong>impossible situation<\/strong> by asking assessee to invest money in specified asset before actual receipt of the same. Also, <strong>s. 54EC requires the &#8220;consideration&#8221; to be invested. If the consideration is not received, there is no question of investing it<\/strong> (S. Gopal Reddy 181 ITR 378 (AP), Janardhan Dass 299 ITR 210 (All) Darapaneni Chenna Krishnayya 291 ITR 98 (AP) (<em>compulsory acquisition cases<\/em>) followed)<\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/chanchal-kumar-sircar-vs-ito-itat-kolkota-s-54ec-investment-time-limit-begins-from-date-of-receipt-of-consideration\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4481","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-tribunal"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4481","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4481"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4481\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4481"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4481"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4481"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}