9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stituted to decide the Appeal as well as to adjudicate the question of law: "Whether, the phrase 'a residential house' used in sub-section (1) of Section 54 and 54F means one residential house or more than one residential house independently located in the same building/compound/city ?" 3. That as per the judgment of the Special Bench as stated above the assessee's case squarely covers the issue and the exemption should be available, whereas the Ld. C.I.T. (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts by not allowing the exemption for both the adjacent residential flats. It is clearly stated in the order of the Judgment of Special bench of Mumbai Tribunal at point no.11 that. "In view of the above discussion, it is held that exemption u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning income of the assessee at Rs. 3.38 Crores. 3. The only issue involved in the case under consideration is whether the AO and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) were justified in allowing exemption of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) u/s. 54 of the Act in respect of one residential flat only as opposite to the claim of the appellant of exemption of two adjacent flats. Briefly stated facts of the case are that during the year, the appellant had sold the tenancy rights for a consideration of Rs. 5.49 Crores and had offered LTCG on the said transaction as under: Sale proceeds Rs. 5,49,00,000 Less: Expenses on sale Rs. 35,00,000 Rs. 5,14,00,000 Less: Invested in residential flat Rs. 3,09,80,000 Long Term Capital Gain Rs. 2,00,42,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Representative (AR) submitted that flats were being used as one residential unit, that flats had the common-passage, the flats were registered in the name of the assessee. In Flat No. 701, kitchen was not working, that in Flat No. 702, kitchen had of all the equipments. He relied upon the case of Ms. Sushila M. Jhaveri delivered by the ITAT Special Bench, Mumbai [292 ITR (AT 1)]. He further held that case under consideration was directly covered by the said judgments. Departmental Representative(DR) relied upon the orders of the Revenue authorities. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material put before us. We find that issue has been decided by the Special Bench in the case of Sushila M. Jhaveri (supra). In para 11 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
