Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (5) TMI 1231

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssessee purchased more than one residential house then deduction u/s. 54 of the Act cannot be claimed. In the present case, the assessee has purchased two residential houses, which are distinct and separate properties and further, said property has been purchased in the name of his wife. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction u/s. 54 of the Act and thus, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and reject the ground taken by the assessee. Disallowance of further investment claimed while computing LTCG derived from transfer of property - AO has not considered additional payment made by the assessee to the builder for construction of building and further improvement in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 23-24/1053164578(1) for the above mentioned Assessment Year is contrary to law, fact and in circumstances of the case. 2. The NFAC, Delhi erred in confirming the disallowance of claim of deduction under Section 54 of the Act to the tune of Rs. 1,61,99,820/- (in the name of the wife) as part of the computation of Long Term Capital Gains without assigning proper reasons and justification. 3. The NFAC, Delhi erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 40,00,000/being the payment made to builders through RTGS as part of computation of Long Term Capital Gains without assigning proper reasons and justification. 4. The NFAC, Delhi in any event erred in disallowing Rs. 40,00,000/- being the payments made towards acquiring the new house within the a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e of immovable property at West Mambalam, Chennai for the sale consideration of Rs. 5,05,00,000/-. The assessee in the computation has taken a cost of acquisition at Rs. 95,59,000/- and claimed deduction of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- for investment on property on his own name and another deduction claimed for another property of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- in the name of his wife Smt. R. Gayathri. The A.O in the assessment order has allowed indexed cost of acquisition only of Rs. 11,68,039/- and deduction u/s. 54 of the Act of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- in respect of investment made on his name thus, recomputed the capital gain at Rs. 3,32,96,961/-. Aggrieved by the above addition, the assessee has filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) has .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e name of his wife. As regard to claim of exemption u/s. 54 of the Act addition of Rs. 40,00,000/-, the assessee has submitted addition evidence in the form of bank statement of the builder in whose account Rs. 40,00,000/- was credited, the assessee has required to admit the above evidence. 3. The first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No.2 of assessee s appeal is disallowance of deduction u/s. 54 of the Act in respect of reinvestment of capital gains derived from transfer of original asset. The A.O has also disallowed deduction u/s. 54 of the Act on the ground that the assessee has invested in two distinct properties in the name of his wife contrary to provisions of Section 54 of the Act, where it has been specified a r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... consideration from ground Nos.3 4 of assessee s appeal is disallowance of further investment of Rs. 40,00,000/- claimed by the assessee while computing LTCG derived from transfer of property. The A.O has not considered additional payment made by the assessee to the builder for construction of building and further improvement in the property on the ground that the assessee could not furnish any evidences including payment details and bills for improvement to the building. 8. It was the arguments of the Ld. counsel for the assessee that the assessee has filed certain evidences, but could not furnish bills for construction during the course of assessment proceedings. Further, the assessee has obtained certain additional evidences like bill fr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates