9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1925X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2017 (11) TMI 1622 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, JAIPUR] . Also see SHRI JITENDRA V FARIA VERSUS ITO 18 (2) (1) , MUMBAI [ 2017 (5) TMI 12 - ITAT MUMBAI] We direct the AO to allow claim of deduction u/s 54 of the Act in respect of the investments made by the assessee in his own name alongwith the name of his brother. - Decided in favour of assessee in part. - ITA No. 995/JP/2018 - - - Dated:- 31-7-2019 - Shri Ramesh C. Sharma, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessee by : Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA Revenue by: Shri Rajender Singh, Addl. CIT-DR ORDER PER RAMESH C. SHARMA, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-2, Jaipur dated 17-11-2017 for the Assessment Year 2014-15, in the matter of ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se property in the name of the assessee and his brother Shri Satish Solanki for Rs. 12.50 lacs (Rs. 6.25 lacs + Rs. 6.25 lacs) on 22-04-2013 and 27-04-2013 as evidenced by the bank statement of the assessee. Part of the sale proceeds Rs. 15.00 lacs (Rs. 7,50,000+7,50,000) received on 04-04-2013 was transferred to the bank account of nephew (brother s son) Shri Somil Solanki on 17-04-2013 and from bank statement of nephew the amount was utilized to purchase the house property in the name of nephew for Rs. 15 lacs on 22-04-2013 as evidenced by the Bank Statement of the nephew. While framing the assessment, the AO allowed the deduction only for half portion of one residential house purchased in the name of assessee and his brother of Rs. 6,65, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee jointly with brother and also in the name of nephew should be allowed while computing the capital gains. 3.5 On the other, the ld. DR contended that only investments made by the assessee in his own name can be allowed in terms of strict provisions of section 54 of the Act. 3.6 I have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below, in so far as, assessee has made investment in his joint name alongwith brother, the same deserves to be allowed in terms of the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Mahadev Balai vs ITO (supra). I also find that similar view has been taken by various Coordinate Benches. In the case of Jitendra V Faria vs ITO-18(2)(1), Mumba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1961, to the assessee for the whole consideration of Rs. 3,28,15,000 for the purpose of the new asset (the residential property) in the joint names of the assessee and his wife, and not to the extent of 5 0 per cent. share of the assessee in the new asset? The hon'ble High Court has at pages 42 and 43 held as under: '9. At the outset, the important factual findings recorded by the Tribunal in this case are that it was the assessee who independently invested in the purchase of new residential house though in his own name but along with the name of his wife also and that it was the assessee who paid stamp duty and corporation tax at the time of the registration of the sale deed of the house so purchased and has also paid commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 54F mandates that the house should be purchased by the assessee and it does not stipulate that the house should be purchased in the name of the assessee only. Here is a case where the house was purchased by the assessee and that too in his name and wife 's name was also included additionally. Such inclusion of the name of the wife for the above-stated peculiar factual reason should not stand in the way of the deduction legitimately accruing to the assessee. The objective of section 54F and the like provision such as section 54 is to provide impetus to the house construction and so long as the purpose of house construction is achieved, such hyper technicality should not impede the way of deduction which the Legislature has allowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
