9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 1104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst the order passed by the CIT(A) Guntur dated 13.10.2010 and pertains to the assessment year 2007-08. 2. The Revenue raised the following grounds: 2. The CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee s case is fully covered in the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ananda Basappa (309 ITR 329). 3. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that two flats purchased ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the flats. The ITI Inspector has given a report dated 18.8.2009 wherein he has stated that the assessee has purchased two flats as claimed by the assessee and in one of the flats the assessee himself is residing and in the second flat friend of the assessee is residing which is a separate family and in no way related with the assessee. It was also submitted by the Inspector that the two flats are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d modification of the flats to make them one unit by opening the door in between the two apartments. The fact that at the time when the Inspector inspected the premises, the flats were occupied by two different tenants was not a ground to hold that the apartment was not one residential unit. The fact that the assessee could have purchased both the flats in one single sale deed or could have narrat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chase of 4 flats two of which were on ground floor and one each on the first and second floor. 2. ITO Vs. P.C. Ramakrishna HUF (107 ITJ 351) (Chennai) wherein the Tribunal had allowed exemption u/s 54 even when the assessee had acquired two flats one on the ground floor and the other on the third floor. 3. Pre Prakesh Bhutani Vs. ACIT (110 ITJ 440) (Delhi) where the Tribunal observed that ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
