2014 (4) TMI 1226 - HC - Income Tax

Entitled to claim deductions u/s 54B and 54F - two properties purchased by in the name of her two daughters, who are her only successors - Unmarried daughters - Held that - The words used in the Sections should be given liberal interpretation as the property has been purchased in the name of appellant s daughters who are also her heirs. The intention of the Legislature is to extend the benefit to the members of the family which includes married daughters who are possible legal heirs. We are unable to accept the contentions as the language of the aforesaid Sections is very clear that it relates to unmarried daughters. Here the undisputed fact is that the property is purchased in the name of married daughters. When the Legislature thought it fit to specify the words unmarried daughters , the Court cannot substitute the words. No illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order in any manner.

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of Sections 54B and 54F of the Income Tax Act regarding deductions for properties purchased in the name of married daughters.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the Tribunal's judgment regarding the entitlement to claim deductions under Sections 54B and 54F of the Income Tax Act for properties purchased in the name of married daughters, who are the appellant's only successors for the assessment year 2008-2009.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that the provisions of Sections 54B and 54F should be liberally interpreted to include married daughters as beneficiaries, as they are also legal heirs. The intention of the Legislature, according to the counsel, was to extend benefits to family members, including married daughters.

3. The Court, however, rejected the appellant's contentions, emphasizing that the language of the Sections explicitly refers to "unmarried daughters." Since the property in question was purchased in the name of married daughters, the Court held that it could not alter the statutory language provided by the Legislature. Therefore, the Court found no legal flaw in the Tribunal's decision.

4. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed by the Court on the grounds that no substantial question of law was involved. The Court ruled that since the Sections clearly specify "unmarried daughters," the appellant's claim for deductions for properties purchased in the name of married daughters was not valid. The appellant was also not awarded any costs in this matter.