K. Sreedhar Rao, J.—The appellant-assessee sold a house plot in RMV II Stage, Bangalore, for Rs. 20,00,000/- under registered sale deed dated 5-6-2004. The Assessing Authority found that the registration value of the property fixed under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 is Rs. 36,00,000/-. The assessee, however, had reinvested Rs. 24,00,000/- for construction of residential house at Gangavathi and sought exemption from the payment of capital gain tax under Section 54-F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the IT Act"). The Assessing Authority found that under Section 50-C of the IT Act, the value of the property is Rs. 36,00,000/-. The cost price of site paid by the assessee at Rs. 1,93,506/- was deducted and the net income chargeable to tax under Capital Gains was assessed at Rs. 34,06,494/-. Further, the Assessing Authority given deduction of Rs. 20,00,000/- towards investment in construction of residential house at Gangavathi and assessed the long-term capital gain at Rs. 14,06,494/- and the tax payable is assessed at Rs. 4,96,989/-. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. The assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the order of the Assessing Authority and dismissed the appeal. The assessee, aggrieved by the said order of the Appellate Tribunal, has filed this appeal.

2. The assessee has formulated as many as 8 substantial questions of law in the appeal memo, which are as follows.--

(a) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal is justified in upholding the order of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Authority and the appeal order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hubli?

(b) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the "capital gains" and "the Net Consideration" have to be worked out within the framework of Section 54-F of the Act, without imposing any fiction created by any other section and that the capital gains arising from the transfer of any long-term capital asset for the purpose of Section 54-F has to be worked out applying Section 48 without imposing Section 50-C into it?

(c) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal is correct in law in rejecting the contentions that provisions of Section 54-F(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act will become unworkable, if the construction placed thereon, would require the consideration as per Section 50-C of the Act to be taken to work out the amount to exemption of the capital gains in other words whether it is correct to hold that the operation of legal fiction under Section 50-C of the Act has to be

restricted only for the purpose of Section 48 of the Act as wrongly interpreted by the Income Tax Tribunal and not to be applied for the entire sub-chapter "E" of Chapter IV relating to taxation of capital gains, especially to Section 45 of the Income Tax Act?

(d) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal is correct in law in rejecting the contention that the term capital gain in Section 54-f has to be arrived by imposing Section 50-C of the Act in order to comply with the provisions of charging Section 45 of the Income Tax Act?

(e) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal is correct in law in rejecting the contention that the harmonious construction of Section 54-F of the Act and Section 45(1) of the Act along with computational provisions of Section 48 read with Section 50-C of the Act can only be achieved if the provisions of Section 54-F are given its natural and literal meaning and not a strained meaning by subjecting it to the provisions of Section 50-C of the Act?

(f) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the deni