9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 401X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ] which says that if a statutory provision is capable of more than one view, then the view which favours the tax payer should be preferred. Also that Section 54F being a beneficial provision enacted for encouraging investment in residential houses should be liberally interpreted. The entire purchase consideration was paid only by the assessee and not a single penny was contributed by the assessee’s wife. As a matter of fact, Section 54F in terms does not require that the new residential property shall be purchased in the name of the assessee; it merely says that the assessee should have purchased/constructed “a residential house”. See CIT Vs. Gurnam Singh [2008 (4) TMI 28 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] - in favour of the assessee. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e purchase of a residential house for Rs.34,35,700/- in the name of his wife. 4. The assessing officer while completing the assessment, took the view that under Section 54F, the investment in the residential house should be made in the assessee s name and in as much as the residential house was purchased by the assessee in the name of his wife, the deduction was not allowable. He reduced the deduction and computed the capital gains accordingly. 5. On appeal, the CIT (Appeal) accepted the assessee s contention based on the judgment of the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. V. Natarajan : (2006) 287 ITR 271 and that of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Late Gulam Ali Khan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax : (1987) 165 ITR 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e deduction under Section 54F to 50% on the footing that the deduction was not available on the portion of the investment which stands in the name of the assessee s wife. This view was disapproved by this Court. It noted that the entire purchase consideration was paid only by the assessee and not a single penny was contributed by the assessee s wife. It also noted that a purposive construction is to be preferred as against a literal construction, more so when even applying the literal construction, there is nothing in the section to show that the house should be purchased in the name of the assessee only. As a matter of fact, Section 54F in terms does not require that the new residential property shall be purchased in the name of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
