9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .f. 01.04.2015, which does not fall within the assessment year under consideration. There is nothing on record from the side of Revenue to justify that the said amendment was made applicable with retrospective effect. In such circumstances. As regards the disallowance on the premise of investment in two residential flats, we find that in the case of V.R. Karpaam (Smt.) [ 2013 (8) TMI 477 - ITAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Member For the Appellant : Sh. I.A. Siddiqi, Advocate For the Respondent : Smt. Sita Srivastava, Sr. DR ORDER PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M.: This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2915-16 is directed against the order dated 18.09.2018 passed by ld. CIT(A), Aligarh, challenging the impugned order on the ground that the ld. CIT(A) while sustaining the disallowance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction u/s. 54 could be allowed only in respect of one flat. 3. The assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who sustained the disallowance on the premise that the legal position has changed w.e.f. 01.04.2015 and in section 54, phrase a residential house has been substituted by one residential house in India . Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le residential houses. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for any interference. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and have gone through the material available on record. The only question to be adjudicated in the instant case is whether the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s. 54/54F of the Act in the attending circumstances of the case or not and whether the changed legal posi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial house has to be understood in plural. It is not necessary that all residential units should be single door number allotted. In this decision, the Tribunal, following the ratio in CIT v. K.G. Rukminiamma (2011) 331 ITR 211 (Karn.)(HC), allowed the claim of assessee. In view of these decisions, we find no justification to discard the claim made by the assessee u/s. 54 of the Act in the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
