9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the deduction us 54F of the Act disregarding the report of Inspector wherein it has been reported that the property In Issue was in the possession of Smt. Purnima Mehra." 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : Assessee filed return of income of Rs. 15,06,65/- which was subjected to scrutiny. Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee has sold 50% share in a commercial property of Rs. 3.5 crores and has shown Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs. 3,15,35,564/- in the return of income out of which assessee claimed deduction under section 54EC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to the tune of Rs. 49,55,589/- and deduction u/s 54F of the Act for Rs. 2,65,79,975/-. Assessee claimed to have invested an amount of Rs. 2,65,79,975/- for purchasing 2/3rd share in a residential house i.e. Villa No.V-2/2, Jaypee Greens, D-Block, Surajpur-Kasna Road, Greater Noida (U.P.) from her parents and the balance 1/3rd share was already owned by the assessee since 2008. AO proceeded to disallow deductions claimed by the assessee u/s 54F of the Act on failure of the assessee to furnish sale deed of the property and thereby made an a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me Court & Hon'ble High Courts in the cases of CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini (Supreme Court-2017-LL-1004-1 dated 04.01.2017, Sanjeev Lal vs. CIT (Chandigarh) (Supreme Court- 2014-LL-0701-17 dated 01.07.2014, Narinder Singh vs. DCIT Circle, Sangrur (P&U HC) - 2016-LL-0122-213 dated 22.01.2016, CIT vs. Ram Gopal (Delhi HC) - 2015-LL-0209-2 dated 09.02.2015, Pr. CIT-1, Chandigarh vs. Mukhitar Kaur (P&H HC) - 2017-LL-1114-11 dated 14.11.2017 & Pr. CIT, Jalandhar-1 vs. Ranjit Kaur (P&H HC) - 2017-LL-0502-36 dated 14.11.2017. 10. When we examine the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) in the light of the undisputed facts, that the assessee has purchased 2/3rd share of the constructed villa in question from her parents, 1/3rd share of which was originally purchased by the assessee in March 2008; that the assessee has duly proved details of payment made by her to the vendee/her parents qua the property in question; and that the assessee has also proved on file photograph of the property along with electricity and water bills to prove her possession over the property, in our considered view for all intents and purposes and for the purpose of the Act, the assessee shall be construed as own ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laws such as the Transfer of Property Act and the Registration Act, etc. Generally speaking depreciation is an allowance for the diminution in the value due to wear and tear of a capital asset employed by an assessee in his business. The very concept of depreciation suggests that the tax benefit on account of depreciation legitimately belongs to one who has invested in the capital asset and is utilising the capital asset and thereby losing gradually the investment caused by wear and tear, and would need to replace the same by having lost its value fully over a period of time. It is well settled that there cannot be two owners of the property simultaneously and in the same sense of the term. The intention of the Legislature in enacting section 32 of the Act would be best fulfilled by allowing deduction in respect of depreciation to the person in whom for the time-being vests the dominion over the building and who is entitled to use it in his own right and is using the same for the purposes of his business or profession. Assigning any different meaning would not subserve the legislative intent. The assessee was a private limited company. During the assessment year 1981-82 (accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, therefore, clearly the idea is that an agreement which provides some defense in the hands of transferee was incorporated under the definition of 'transfer' in the Income Tax Act . Now originally section 53A of T.P. Act provided that even if "the contract though required to be registered has not been registered", which means the right of defending the possess ion was available even if the contract was not registered but by Amendment Act 48 of 2001, the expression "though required to be registered has not been registered" , has been omitted which means for the purpose of possession u/s 53A of T.P. Act, a person has to prove that possession has been given under a registered agreement. In other words, now u/s 53A of T.P. Act, the agreement referred is required to be registered. This requirement cannot be read in clause (v) of section 2(47) because that refers only to the contract of the nature of section 53A of T.P. Act without going into the controversy whether such agreement is required to be registered or not . The Ld. Counsel for the assessee had referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surana Steel s v DCIT 237 ITR 777 (SC) for the proposition that w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
