9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 860X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... various High Courts - Decided against revenue. - I.T.A. No.1253/Chny/2019 - - - Dated:- 24-1-2022 - Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member And Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri AR V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT For the Respondent : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, C.A. ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai dated 11.01.2019 relevant to the assessment year 2012-13. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 on 01.06.2013 admitting total income of ₹.10,82,700/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and after fol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant that the delay was attributable to the builder. To resolve the issue on hand it is pertinent here to refer to the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT v. Sardarmal Kothari [2008] 302 ITR 286 (Madras) wherein it was declared as follows: In order to get the benefit under section 54F, the assessee need not complete the construction of the house and occupy the same. Circular No. 667, dated 18.10.1993 ([1993] 204 ITR (St.) 103) would not in any way advance the case of the revenue to come to the conclusion that in order to have the benefit under section 54F, the construction should have been completed. This view was further elaborated by the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT vs. B.S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deduction under section 54F of the Act even though the construction of the new asset was not completed within three years, the ld. CIT(A) has respectfully followed the decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Sardarmal Kothari 302 ITR 286 (Mad), which was duly endorsed by the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT v. B.S. Shanthakumari [2015] 233 Taxman 347 (Karnataka). Thus, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). 7. With regard to the denial of deduction claimed on multiple properties under section 54F of the Act, the ld.CIT(A) has observed and held as under: 4.2.1 With regard to the issue of the appellant claiming deduction on multiple properties, the appellant conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion u/s.54F though the deduction was claimed on multiple properties. The appellant succeeds on this ground. 8. On perusal of the case law relied on by the ld. CIT(A) in his appellate order, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly followed the decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. V.R. Karpagam 373 ITR 127 (Mad), wherein, the Hon ble Madras High Court has referred to the decision taken by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. K.G. Rukminiamma [2011] 331 ITR 211 (Kar.) to hold that the assessee is eligible for the deduction claimed under section 54F of the Act. The ld. DR could not controvert the above decisions of various High Courts. Thus, the ground raised by the Revenue is devoid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
