9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and her husband. In our view, the lower authorities were not justified in denying the deduction of the beneficial provisions of section 54F to the assessee, mainly because of the assessee is an old aged lady, has included the name of his daughter in the purchase deed who is the only legal heir and life support in their old age. As decided in SHRI GURNAM SINGH [ 2008 (4) TMI 28 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] deduction u/s 54B could not be denied merely because the land was purchased in joint name of assessee and his only son who was bachelor and dependent upon him. Also in the case of CIT Vs Kamal Wahal [ 2013 (1) TMI 401 - DELHI HIGH COURT] in respect of claim of deduction u/s 54F has held that where the new house was purchased in the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udhury. There is no dispute that the amount earned by the assessee on account of sale of securities (capital gains) was duly invested by the assessee in purchase of new residential house. 5. The ld. DR, on the other hand, has relied the findings of the lower authorities. 6. We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the record. It has been held time and again that the provisions of section 54F are beneficial provisions intending for the purchase and construction of new residential house. The assessee and her husband admittedly are old aged. The house has been purchased in joint name with their only daughter who is the only legal heir of the assessee and her husband. In our view, the lower authorities were not justified in den ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is no rebuttal to the contention that the assessee has invested the consideration received on the sale of securities for purchase of new house, however, in joint name with her daughter. The issue is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs Gurnam Singh (supra) and of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Kamal Wahal (supra) and in the case of Ravinder Kumar Arora vs. CIT (supra). Therefore, respectfully following the orders of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court (supra), it is held that the assessee is entitled to 100% of the deduction claimed u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
