9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ote that the Hon ble High Court was pleased to observe that the decision in the case of Ms. Sushila M. Jhaveri [ 2007 (4) TMI 289 - ITAT BOMBAY-I] has been confirmed by this Court in the case of CIT Vs. Raman Kumar Suri [ 2012 (12) TMI 421 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] . Therefore, as discussed above the Special Bench in the case of Ms. Sushila M. Jhaveri [ 2007 (4) TMI 289 - ITAT BOMBAY-I] held exemption is allowable u/s. 54F of the Act if the two adjacent or contiguous untis converted into one residential house by having common passage/stair case, common kitchen etc. intended to be used as single house for the residence of the family. In the present case, as we noted above that two adjacent flats converted into one unit by opening a common wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acquisition, declared Long Term Capital Gain at ₹ 73,76,957/-. The assessee invested Capital Gain arising out of said sale of immovable property in two adjacent residential flats in Lodha Builders at Dombivili (E), Mumbai. The said two flats adjacent to each other and located in the same building and floor and referred to Page No. 52 of the paper book. He submits that the assessee paid consideration for the said two adjacent flats separately vide two registered Sale Deed and referred to Page Nos. 1 to 57 of the paper book for a consideration of ₹ 34,39,306 and ₹ 35,89,757/-. Out of the Capital Gain declared by the assessee, deposited in capital account of ₹ 3,39,626/- (₹ 73,76,957/- - ₹ 70,37,331/-). The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attention to specific conditions contained in Agreement to Sell at Point L which is at Page No. 4 and Point 6.1 at Page No. 6 and also Point 11.1 at Page No. 7 of the paper book. Apart from the case laws furnished through paper book, Shri Loya also placed on the decision of Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Devdas Naik reported in 366 ITR 12 (Bom) and argued by referring the decision in the case of Ms. Sushila M. Jhaveri reported in 107 ITD 327 the Hon ble High Court of Bombay held that the acquisition of the flats may have been done independently but eventually they are a single unit house for the purpose of residence. The ld. DR, Shri Vitthal Bhosale vehemently opposed the submissions of ld. AR and argued the AO and CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respectively wherein we note that the flats are located adjacent to each other having common stair-case, lobby and lift etc. The conversion said to have been made by the assessee making the said two flats into one unit is in the plan of which at Page No. 58 wherein we note that the assessee made modification by opening common wall between two living and dining areas of Flat Nos. 701 and 702. Therefore, it is noted and we find force in the arguments of the ld. AR that the two adjacent flats are being used as single residential unit by opening the common wall between the two living and dining areas. 7. Coming to the decision of Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Devdas Naik (supra) we note that the Hon ble High Court was pleased ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
