9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 172 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s. 54 - justification on purchase of two flats in different localities on account of family compulsions - Held that - We are of considered view that the assessee is eligible to claim deduction u/s. 54 in respect of only one flat of his choice. We do not find any infirmity in the findings of authorities below in restricting deduction to ₹ 50,89,950/- i.e. the cost of one flat. Accordingly, ground No. 1 raised in appeal by assessee is dismissed. Expenditure paid as compensation to the tenant for vacating the premises - Held that - The said tenant in affidavit has admitted to have received ₹ 12,00,000/- for relinquishing his tenancy rights. The ld. AR submitted that since, the ancestral house was jointly owned by assessee and Jayant Dattatraya Bhalerao and Ashok Dattatraya Bhalerao, all the three co-owners equally contributed towards the payment of compensation to Shri Vaman Shriniwas Kulkarni. Thus, 1/3rd share of assessee comes to ₹ 4,00,000/-. The assessee has filed affidavit of tenant as additional evidence for the first time before Tribunal. Under such circumstances we deem it appropriate to remit ground No. 2 to Assessing Officer for verification of facts. The Assessing Officer shall decide this issue de-novo
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for multiple residential properties. 2. Allowability of expenses such as brokerage, compensation paid to tenants, and advocate fees in computing Capital Gains. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Eligibility for Deduction under Section 54 for Multiple Residential Properties The appellants, co-owners of an ancestral bungalow, sold the property and claimed deductions under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for investments in multiple residential properties. The Assessing Officer (AO) allowed the deduction for only one property, leading to appeals. - Appellant 1 (ITA No. 146/PUN/2015): The appellant invested in two flats located in different localities and claimed deductions for both. The AO restricted the deduction to one flat, and this was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). The Tribunal noted that the deduction under Section 54 is available for "a residential house," interpreted by courts to mean one house. The Tribunal found no evidence supporting the appellant's claim of family compulsion to buy two flats in different localities. Therefore, the appellant was eligible for deduction for only one flat, and the appeal was dismissed. - Appellant 2 (ITA No. 147/PUN/2015): The appellant invested in three flats in the same building, with two adjacent flats on the 11th floor and one on the 2nd floor. The AO restricted the deduction to one flat. The Tribunal held that the appellant could claim deduction for two adjacent flats if they were combined into one residential unit. The case was remitted to the AO for verification of whether the two flats were joined into a single unit. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes. Issue 2: Allowability of Expenses in Computing Capital Gains - Appellant 1 (ITA No. 146/PUN/2015): The appellant claimed expenses for brokerage, compensation to a tenant, and advocate fees. The AO disallowed these expenses. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance. The Tribunal remitted the issue of compensation paid to the tenant back to the AO for verification, as the appellant provided an affidavit from the tenant. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes. - Appellant 2 (ITA No. 147/PUN/2015): The appellant claimed compensation paid to a tenant. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for verification, similar to the decision in ITA No. 146/PUN/2015. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes. - Appellant 3 (ITA No. 148/PUN/2015): The appellant claimed compensation paid to a tenant and brokerage fees. The Tribunal remitted the issue of compensation back to the AO for verification. The appellant withdrew the ground regarding brokerage fees. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes. Conclusion: The Tribunal consistently held that deductions under Section 54 are restricted to one residential house unless multiple units are combined into a single residential unit. The issue of compensation paid to tenants was remitted back to the AO for verification in all relevant appeals. Brokerage and advocate fees were generally disallowed unless explicitly withdrawn by the appellant. All appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
|
