9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 2032X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered in Anita K Kalyani vs. ACIT [ 2017 (2) TMI 788 - ITAT MUMBAI] Hence, we allow the sole ground of appeal of the assessee and set aside the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow the exemption u/s 54 of the Act claimed by the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 2076/MUM/2017 - - - Dated:- 7-2-2018 - Shri R.C. Sharma (AM) And Shri Ram Lal Negi (JM) For the Assessee : Shri Sushil U. Lakhani (AR). For the Revenue : Shri V. Justin (DR). ORDER Per Ram Lal Negi, JM This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 02/01/2017 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-46, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2012-13, whereby the Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee submitted the details called for by the AO. It was noticed that the assessee and her husband, being joint owners, sold their flat for a total consideration of ₹ 26,67,631/- and the assessee claimed exemption to the extent of her share u/s 54 of the Act. It was noticed that agreement for purchase of the said property was executed on 03.03.2006. The agreement for sale of the said property was executed on 20.06.2009 and agreement for purchase of new property was executed on 22.09.2008. Accordingly, the AO asked the assessee as to why exemption u/s 54 should not be disallowed since, the property was under construction and the same was not held by the assessee for three years. The assessee contended that the residential prope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd allowed the exemption u/s 54/54F to the extent of his share i.e., ₹ 32,86,739/-. The Ld. counsel further submitted that there is no reason for taking divergent views in the identical facts and circumstances of the case. The Ld. counsel further submitted that since the AO has not passed the assessment order in accordance with the law laid down by the various High Courts and the decisions of various Benches of the Tribunal, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have set aside the assessment order. The Ld. counsel invited our attention to the decision of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Anita D Kanjani vs. ACIT (Mum) ITAT (2017) taxmann.com 67 (Mum Trib.) in which, the Tribunal has held that the holding period should be computed from the date of issue o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 20.6.2009. Appellant considered date of allotment of flat i.e. 29.03.2005 as date of acquisition and computed the Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG). As appellant s date of acquisition is considered as date of allotment, it complete 3 years of owing the property, hence the appellant had computed Long term capital gain and claimed exemption u/s 54 for ₹ 26,59,277/-. However, AO had disallowed the claim of the appellant on the ground that appellant had only taken possession of the property on 27.5.2009, hence according to AO the appellant had not owned property on 27.5.2009, hence according to AO the appellant had not owned property for more than 3 years considering the date of possession and date of sale of the property, hence claim of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
