9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 2018X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the house was habitable and given for rent for 7 months. But the Assessing Officer has only gone through the spot verification conducted by sub-registrar that the property was habitable. We find that an identical issue come up before in case of Rahana Siraj vs. CIT [ 2015 (1) TMI 1421 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] which was relied by the Ld. AR. In light of the above decision, the claim of the assessee u/s 54F of the Act is just and proper. Decided in favour of assessee. - SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri S. R. Rao, Adv For the Respondent : SH. D. K. Jain, DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM These two appeals are filed by the respective assessee s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intly owned by the assessee and other five co-owners was sold to M/s. Shivram Ventures Pvt. Ltd. on 10-04-2008 for total sale consideration of Rs.5,03,00,000/-, Rs. 3,84,20,000/- for land and Rs. 1,18,80,000/- for super structure on the land. The assessee has shown Long Term Capital Gain at Rs. 85,94,408/- on his share of sale consideration and claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act of Rs. 53,03,650/- on account of purchase of a ready built house at Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur on 04-07-2008 along with further deduction of Rs. 20,06,948/- expended out of the sale proceeds for making the house habitable. The AO accepted the share of sale consideration taken at Rs. 93,00,000/-, indexed cost of acquisition at Rs. 7,05,592/-, commission of Rs. 56,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture required substantial capital expenditure to make it habitable at that particular time. The house being very old, further sum of Rs.24,76,231/- was incurred to make it habitable. The Ld. AR further submitted that separate account was opened and all expenses were paid partly through cheques and partly through cash. The Ld. AR pointed out the assessment order does not give any finding that the assessee did not incur these expenses. The Ld. AR submitted that simply relying on CBDT Circular /guidelines by the Assessing Officer which was never confronted with the assessee is not just and proper. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Assessing Officer in fact admitted genuine need of capital repairs but estimated the same at Rs.100/- per sq. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd laying of marble flooring, alteration of the kitchen, putting up compound wall, protecting the property with grill work and attending to other repairs. Section 54F of the Act provides that if the cost of the new asset, which is to be taken into consideration while determining the capital gain, the words used is cost of new asset and not the consideration for acquisition of the new asset . In law, it is permissible for an assessee to acquire a vacant site and put up a construction thereon and the cost of the new asset would be cost of land plus(+) cost of construction. On the same analogy, even though he purchased a new asset, which is habitable but which requires additions, alternations, modifications and improvements and if money i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
