Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (8) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2019 (8) TMI 1735 - AT - Income Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for deduction under section 54F of the Income Tax Act in case of sale of two commercial properties and investment in one residential property.
2. Disallowance of loss claimed from a house property.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Eligibility for deduction under section 54F:
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-4, Bangalore dated 08.03.2019 for Assessment Year 2012-13. The AO contended that the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s. 54F as the capital gain arose from the sale of two commercial properties purchased separately. The AO referred to sections 54 and 54F of the IT Act, stating that deduction is allowable for capital gain arising from the transfer of a long term capital asset. The AO concluded that since the capital gain arose from the sale of two properties, the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s. 54/54F. The ld. AR of the assessee cited Tribunal orders and a judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court to support the claim for deduction. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, stating that the exemption under sec. 54F is restricted to one transaction and disallowed the exemption claimed on the sale of two properties amounting to ?56,22,000.

Analysis Continued:
The Tribunal noted that the assessee sold two commercial properties with two distinct sale deeds and aimed to invest in one residential property to claim exemption u/s. 54F. The Tribunal referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, which clarified that the term "a residential house" in section 54 does not refer to a single residential house but allows for plural interpretation. The Tribunal held that the authorities were not justified in rejecting the claim for deduction u/s. 54F based on the sale of two commercial properties. The Tribunal ordered the matter to be restored to the AO to quantify and allow the deduction u/s. 54F as per law, provided the assessee purchased an eligible residential house property within the prescribed time.

Issue 2: Disallowance of loss claimed from a house property:
The assessee raised a ground regarding the disallowance of a loss of ?37,249 from a house property. The AO disallowed the loss claimed by the assessee as no notional income was offered from a vacant let-out property. The ld. CIT(A) agreed with the AO's observation, stating that the assessee was not entitled to claim a loss on this property.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, holding that the authorities were not justified in rejecting the claim for deduction u/s. 54F based on the sale of two commercial properties. The Tribunal ordered the matter to be sent back to the AO to quantify and allow the deduction as per law if the assessee had purchased an eligible residential house property within the prescribed time. Additionally, the disallowance of the loss claimed from a house property was upheld by the ld. CIT(A).

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates