9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal of the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the exemption amounting to Rs..2,19,19,419/- under section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act" in short]. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assesse filed his return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 02.02.2017 declaring total income of Rs..36,84,980/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. After considering the submissions and details furnished against statutory notices, the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed by assessing total income of the assessee at Rs..2,55,88,837/- after rejecting the claim of deduction of Rs..2,19,19,419/- towards capital gains under section 54 of the Act. On appeal, by following the decision in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. Delivery of tangible immoveable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property. Thus, it would be clear that the unregistered MoU cannot be received in evidence. Therefore, the actual date of conveyance deed executed by the builder to the assessee should be deemed date of purchase of the property. In support of the appellate order, the assessee has also preferred cross objection against the appeal of the Revenue. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has strongly supported the appellate order and prayed for dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. 5. We have heard both the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs..2,19,19,419/- was brought to tax. On appeal, by following the decision in the case of PCIT v. Vembu Vaidyanathan (supra), the ld. CIT(A) has observed and held as under: "7. As a result the reference to the bare act, case of Vembu Vaidyanathan and the facts and circumstances of the case it is clear that assessee had got allotment letter and possession of the flat in August 2016. He had sold his Bangalore flat in March 2017 which was well within the permissible period of one year date of purchase of the flat in question. Tax authorities have to read the law to make it workable and not adopt hyper-technical interpretation which would injustice to the way any statute has to be read and implemented. Assessee senior citizen was very much pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
