Urgent -- Regarding Long term capital gain on property

1800 views 12 replies

 

Please Assume the following scenario.

If a residential house is purchased in Jun'2001 for Rs. x and the same is sold   in Oct'2009 for Rs. y . It is understood that the LTCG will be calculated based on the indexed cost which will be z = y-(x*(CII in 2009/CII in 2001).

Now if  another house is purchased in Mar'2009 (which will fall under within one year before clause of section 54 ) from own resources without  taking any loan. Please clarify whether in this case the rebate on Long Term capital gain will be available under section 54 of IT act or Not.

More details can be given about the case if required. Please clarify at the earliest.

Replies (12)

Yes of course the rebate can be claimed.

The amount of rebate shall be the cost of the new house or capital gain whichever is higher.

Also, to keep in mind that there is a locking period for the new house - 3 yrs, i.e, if the house is sold/transferred within 3 yrs, the cost of acquisition shall be reduced by the amount of rebate claimed.

Also refer Sec 54 as in the Act (latest).

Profit on sale of property used for residence.

54. [(1)] Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, the capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset, being buildings or lands appurtenant thereto, and being a residential house, the income of which is chargeable under the head Income from house property (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchased, or has within a period of three years after that date constructed, a residential house, then, instead of the capital gain being charged to income-tax as income of the previous year in which the transfer took place, it shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section, that is to say,
(i) if the amount of the capital gain is greater than the cost of the residential house so purchased or constructed (hereafter in this section referred to as the new asset)], the difference between the amount of the capital gain and the cost of the new asset shall be charged under section 45 as the income of the previous year; and for the purpose of computing in respect of the new asset any capital gain arising from its transfer within a period of three years of its purchase or construction, as the case may be, the cost shall be nil; or
(ii) if the amount of the capital gain is equal to or less than the cost of the new asset, the capital gain shall not be charged under section 45; and for the purpose of computing in respect of the new asset any capital gain arising from its transfer within a period of three years of its purchase or construction, as the case may be, the cost shall be reduced by the amount of the capital gain.
(2) The amount of the capital gain which is not appropriated by the assessee towards the purchase of the new asset made within one year before the date on which the transfer of the original asset took place, or which is not utilised by him for the purchase or construction of the new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income under section 139, shall be deposited by him before furnishing such return [such deposit being made in any case not later than the due date applicable in the case of the assessee for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139] in an account in any such bank or institution as may be specified in, and utilised in accordance with, any scheme which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, frame in this behalf and such return shall be accompanied by proof of such deposit; and, for the purposes of sub-section (1), the amount, if any, already utilised by the assessee for the purchase or construction of the new asset together with the amount so deposited shall be deemed to be the cost of the new asset :
Provided that if the amount deposited under this sub-section is not utilised wholly or partly for the purchase or construction of the new asset within the period specified in sub-section (1), then,
(i) the amount not so utilised shall be charged under section 45 as the income of the previous year in which the period of three years from the date of the transfer of the original asset expires; and
(ii) the assessee shall be entitled to withdraw such amount in accordance with the scheme aforesaid.

 

Thanks for your reply.

Please also clarify - if suppose the first house property (which is to be sold in oct2009) is in the name of husband. And the property which is purchased earlier (i.e. Mar'2009)  is in the joint names of husband and wife (Both are earning members). Then will there be any diffrence in the rebate or it will be same as you explained above. Who has to declare the property in the return husband OR wife??

regards,

 

No, if the reinvestment is done in the property jointly held with anyone (even wife), the exemption u/s 54 will not be available to the assessee.

The provision of this section has used the word ‘a residential house’. It means a complete residential house and would not include a shared interest in a residential house. Where the property is owned by more than one person, it cannot be said that any one of them is the owner of the property. In such case, no individual person on his own can sell the entire property. No doubt, he can sell his share of interest in the property but as far as the property is considered, it would continue to be owned by co-owners. Joint ownership is different from absolute ownership. In the case of a residential unit, none of the co-owners can claim that he is the owner of residential house.

Thanks once again Madhumita,

Well, It means rebate on capital gain can not be claimed if the property is jointly owned. But who will show the new property (which is jointly owned by husband & wife) while filing the itax return - husband or wife if both are earning and have taxable income.

thanks & regards,

 

 

Welcome.

Showing the new property is not a problem. Both the husband and wife can show their share of the property as in line with Section 24.

Joint ownership means tax benefits for both. The husband as well as the wife individually will be able to claim deductions under Section 24 of the Income Tax Act, for up to Rs 1,50,000 for interest, as also tax benefits for principal amount under Section 80 C for a maximum of Rs 100,000. Just that the share between the co-owners must be specified clearly in the purchase agreement."

Only for Section 54, you cannot claim exemption.

 

Regards

Madhumita

Thanks Madhumita for your prompt reply.

The new property has been acquired without taking any loan and in the registry the share of each co-owner is not mentioned. Then how it will be ascertained that whose share is how much? Or it is considered 50:50 where no share is clearly mentioned in the registry. Please calrify these points. Also who has to show the property in the return Husband or wife, if both can show then how and under which column in ITR-2.

Thanks & regards.

 

Originally posted by :CA Madhumita Binani
" Yes, it can be considered 50-50 share.. and both the husband and the wife have to show their share in the ITR. Since no interest on housing loan is there, it would not much affect the ITR, as the income will be nil (no loss also).
It is to be shown in Page 3 - Schedule HP.
"


 

Well , Thanks Madhumita for following my query and replying them. It is certainly very helpful.

You said that the share can be considered 50:50. Now you are aware of the case. Please advice whether it should be shown by husband or wife ( I mean what is your opinion) . Also the column for cost of the property is not there at schedule-HP in ITR-2. Only address of property and "income from house property & Interest payable on borrowed capital etc are given. Suppose the house is costing Rs. 20 lacs then in which column this 20 lacs is to be mentioned Or there is no need of showing the cost of property in return. Please clarify.

Thanks once again & regards,

 

 

As far as income Tax is concerned, I opine that it should be shown in both the returns as the property is in name of both. No need to mention the cost, u can just mention in brackets (jointly held with wife). As it is, you have the purchase agreement with you so in case of sale of the house that would work out to be the evidence for cost of acquisition.

Also you can refer this link. I hope this would help you.

https://www.moneycontrol.com/lic_housing/story.php?autono=210927

 

Regards

Madhumita

Thanks Madhumita for your prompt reply.

I think this ends my query here. You clarified all the doubts as a professional in the Finance field.

I have one more doubt regarding the "Gift  received from parents".  The query is given in the Income Tax Forum. please look into this and suggest some solution.

Regards,

 


CCI Pro

Leave a Reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register