9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 690 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 54F - multiple units - denying deduction for more than one flat (residential house) - whether the assessee was having one property or two properties at the time of transfer of capital assets? - case of the assessee that there was no house at all in the property situated at Ganesh Nagar, Sholinganallur, whatever old building existing in dilapidated condition and submitted that since electricity meter exists, it cannot be said that it is a residential property - scope of amendment - HELD THAT - We are of the view that the amendment in the provisions of s. 54(1) replacing the word a residential house by one residential house was brought in Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f 01.04.2014 and will apply for A.Y 2015-16. The relevant assessment year before us is 2013-14 and hence, the assessee is eligible for claim of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act, though there may be multiple units. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
The judgment addresses the following Issues: 1. Whether the property owned by the assessee constituted one or two properties at the time of the capital assets' transfer. 2. Whether the assessee was entitled to claim deduction under section 54F of the Income Tax Act for more than one property. Issue 1: Property Ownership The Revenue appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerning the assessment year 2013-14. The dispute revolved around the nature of the property owned by the assessee at the time of the capital assets' transfer. The Revenue contended that the assessee owned two house properties, while the assessee argued that there was only one residential property. The Assessing Officer considered a vacant land owned by the assessee as a house property due to the presence of an electric connection and rental income. However, the CIT(A) ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the property in question was a vacant plot and not a residential property, making the assessee eligible for the benefit under section 54F of the Act. Issue 2: Claim for Deduction Regarding the assessee's entitlement for deduction under section 54F of the Act for more than one property, the ITAT referred to an amendment in the Act that replaced "a residential house" with "one residential house." The ITAT concluded that this amendment, effective from April 1, 2014, applied to the assessment year 2015-16 and not to the relevant assessment year of 2013-14. Therefore, the assessee was deemed eligible for the deduction under section 54F of the Act, even with multiple units. Based on the Tribunal's findings, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the assessee's eligibility for claiming the deduction under section 54F of the Act. Judgment Outcome: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision that the property in question was a vacant plot and not a residential property. Additionally, the Tribunal affirmed the assessee's eligibility for claiming the deduction under section 54F of the Act, despite owning multiple units. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the assessee's right to the deduction was upheld.
|
