9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edly, the joint owner has also categorically admitted that he has not made any investments in the construction of the property in the name of the assessee. Just because, the assessee has made an investment and has held it jointly with the assessee’s brother, it would not disentitle the assessee to claim of deduction u/s.54F of the Act, especially when he is the one, who has made the entire investm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition towards denial of 50% deduction claim u/s 54F of ₹ 73,33,110/-. 2.2 The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the provision of section 54/54F does not include investment made jointly with a relative, who is not a legal heir and it is immaterial that no contribution was made by that relative. 2.3 The learned CIT(A) ought t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee had invested jointly with his brother, who is not a legal heir, the ld. Assessing Officer had denied the deduction u/s.54F of the Act. It was a further submission that the assessee s brother had also categorically given a certificate that he has not invested any money in the construction of the residential house by the assessee. It was a submission that Ld.CIT(A) had followed the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of deduction u/s.54F of the Act, especially when he is the one, who has made the entire investments. This being so and as it is noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has followed the judicial discipline in following the decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, we find no reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(Appeals) and consequently, the same has been upheld. 7. In the result, the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
