9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to exemption u/s 54 against capital gain from the sale of property and the allowance of transfer fees while determining the cost of the original asset. Exemption u/s 54: The assessee claimed deduction u/s 54 for the purchase of a new residential unit, but the AO restricted the deduction to 1/3rd of the price as the property was purchased in the joint name of the assessee's wife and son. The CIT(A) allowed the claim to the extent of the amount utilized by the assessee for the purchase. The revenue contended that the deduction cannot exceed the share purchased by the assessee. However, the AR argued that since the investment was made by the assessee, the deduction should be allowed accordingly. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision and held in favor of the assessee, stating that the entire amount spent by the assessee should be considered for the deduction u/s 54. Transfer fee allowance: The AO disallowed the claim of transfer fee made by the assessee due to lack of evidence. On appeal, the CIT(A) allowed the claim after considering the details provided by the assessee. The CIT(A) determined the proportionate share of the transfer fee to be considered as an expenditure for the purpose of section 48(i) of the IT Act. The Tribunal found that the assessee had produced relevant records supporting the claim, and upheld the decision of the CIT(A) in allowing the transfer fee as an expenditure. In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal filed by the revenue, upholding the decision regarding the exemption u/s 54 and the allowance of transfer fees as determined by the CIT(A).
|
