9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 271 - AT - Income TaxRestricting the exemption claimed u/s 54 to the amount invested @ ₹ 3000/- per sq.ft. in Flat No.301 (1325sq.ft.) denied by CIT(A) - Held that - In CIT & Anr. vs. D. Ananda Basappa (2008 (10) TMI 99 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) observed that expression a residential house should not be understood to indicate a singular number; assessee having purchased two residential flats, exemption under s. 54 was available, more so as these flats are situated side by side and the builder has effected modification of the flats to make it as one unit. Following CIT vs. D. Ananda Basappa (Supra) it was held in CIT & Anr. vs. Smt. K.G. Rukminiamma (2010 (8) TMI 482 - Karnataka High Court) that expression a residential house used in s. 54 should be understood in a sense that the building should be of residential nature and a should not be understood to indicate a singular number. Assessee was entitled to claim exemption under s. 54 in respect of four residential flats acquired by her. The CIT(A) has followed the decision of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court and therefore the said order does not require any interference. The Assessee was therefore entitled to exemption u/s.54 of the Act in respect of the two flats which were both located in the third floor. - Decided against revenue.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the term "a residential house" under section 54 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Eligibility for deduction under section 54 for multiple residential units acquired through Joint Development Agreement (JDA). 3. Consideration of proximity between residential units for claiming deduction under section 54. Issue 1: Interpretation of the term "a residential house" under section 54: The case involved a dispute regarding the interpretation of the term "a residential house" under section 54 of the Income Tax Act. The Revenue contended that the exemption should be limited to one residential unit, while the assessee claimed the entire capital gains as deductible under section 54 by investing in multiple proximal houses. The Assessing Officer (AO) argued that exemption is available only for "a residential house," and not multiple units. However, the CIT(A) relied on judicial precedents to support the interpretation that the term "a residential house" should not be understood to indicate a singular number, allowing for exemption in the case of multiple residential units. Issue 2: Eligibility for deduction under section 54 for multiple residential units acquired through JDA: The assessee, under a Joint Development Agreement (JDA), received two flats and a part of another flat in exchange for land and building. The AO restricted the exemption to one flat, considering that the assessee received two flats and a part of another flat. However, the CIT(A) allowed the deduction for two flats located on the third floor, citing judicial decisions that emphasized the nature of the building as residential and not limited to a singular unit. The CIT(A) concluded that the assessee was entitled to claim the deduction under section 54 for the two flats on the third floor. Issue 3: Consideration of proximity between residential units for claiming deduction under section 54: The proximity between the residential units was a crucial factor in determining the eligibility for deduction under section 54. The CIT(A) considered the positioning and location of the flats, emphasizing the importance of proximity between the flats. The decision was influenced by the precedent set by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in previous cases, where adjacency and modification of flats to create a single unit were considered in determining eligibility for exemption under section 54. The CIT(A) ruled in favor of allowing the deduction for two flats located on the third floor based on the concept of proximity between the residential units. In conclusion, the judgment clarified the interpretation of the term "a residential house" under section 54, addressed the eligibility for deduction under section 54 for multiple residential units acquired through a JDA, and emphasized the significance of proximity between residential units in claiming the deduction. The decision favored the assessee's entitlement to exemption under section 54 for the two flats located on the third floor, dismissing the appeal by the Revenue.
|
