9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (2) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se are that the assessee has sold his residential house for Rs. 12,10,250 and claimed deduction under s. 54 of the IT Act as the assessee has invested Rs. 5,34,850 in purchase of a flat No. 302 or 3rd Floor in 'Silva Croft' Building, plot No. 25A, I.C. Colony, Main Road, Borivli (West), Mumbai, from M/s Shreyans Developments, Mumbai, vide two separate deed of agreement for sale dt. 10th Dec, 1988. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r s. 54 is allowable only for purchase of a flat/residential house and not for the terrace space. Accordingly, he issued a notice under s. 154 and after rejecting the assessee's explanation, the AO disallowed the deduction under s. 54 to the extent of Rs. 55,000 in respect of terrace space. The CIT(A) has upheld the AO's order and dismissed the assessee's appeal. 4. Now the assessee is in appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g case laws: (i) Shiv Narain Chaudhari vs. CWT 1977 CTR (All) 149 : (1977) 108 ITR 104 (All); (ii) CWT vs. Mrs. Najima Nizai (1992) 101 CTR (Kei) 171 : (1992) 197 ITR 258 (Ker); and (iii) Estate of C.M. Mody vs. CED (1986) 15 ITD 395 (Bom) The learned authorised representative also submitted that on the given facts and circumstances of the case, the provisions of s. 154 are not applicable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmed as integral part of the flat. He distinguished the case laws relied upon by the learned authorized representative. However, on the issue of proceedings initiated under s. 154, he relied on the following case laws: (i) Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1996) 135 CTR (Bom) 53 : (1996) 222 ITR 726 (Bom); and (ii) M.H. Daryani vs. CIT (1993) 202 ITR 731 (Bom). Finally he argued that the AO has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
