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 (9) TMI 263

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 19,53,60,000/- should be allowed as deduction u/s. 54 of the IT Act. However, this deduction may be restricted to the sale proceeds i.e. Rs. 3,86,00,000/-. Disallowance of interest on housing loan claimed u/s. 24 - CIT(A) on the mistaken ground that housing loan has been taken for the purpose of renewal of the same property which is already under rent had disallowed the entire claim of deduction u/s. 54 - We are of the opinion that assessee had received rent amounting to Rs. 4,74,69,381/- during the F.Y. 2020-21 relevant for the A.Y. 2021-22. Therefore, the house property is let out during the year and there is no maximum limit on the deduction for interest on borrowed capital. In the instant case, as the assessee has produced the bank cert .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... : Cost of the new asset being 19,53,60,000. The deduction is restricted to the Sale Proceeds i.e 3,86,00,000. 3. The Learned CIT (A) had a misplaced idea that the interest amount paid to the bank was not on the borrowed capital for renovation of the property though a certificate issued by Mssrs Kotak Bank was adduced before him it is notable that during the course of hearing the Ld CIT(A) had not asked for or expressed that the certificate issued by the bank was not sufficient for claiming deduction. Had he expressed his mind and called for the evidence these were readily available for submission. 4. The Ld CIT(A) erred in not allowing the interest as deduction u/s 24 of the IT Act though a similar deduction was claimed and allowed in the p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... been claimed. Thereafter, the assessing officer concluded the assessment proceeding by disallowing only the claim of deduction u/s. 54 of the IT Act on the ground that assessee has not provided any proof against the deduction claimed. Further, the Ld.AO disallowed the interest paid on house building loan claimed amounting to Rs. 48,26,105/- as the assessee has not furnished any requisite certificate issued by the concerned bank on account of payment of interest on housing loan. Further, the Ld.AO added back the investment in fixed deposit amounting to Rs. 80 Lakhs with HDFC Bank being unexplained investment as income u/s. 69 r.w.s 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961 as the source of such investment for purchasing time deposit from HDFC Bank was not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ple loan and not the home loan and assessee has not produced any document to show the nature of the loan and accordingly he rejected the claim of the interest on loan as not proved by the appellant and allowed the rest of the additions made by the assessing officer on merits. 7. Again aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 8. Before us, the Ld.AR of the assessee vehemently argued that with regard to disallowance of deduction u/s. 54 of the I.Tax Act amounting to Rs. 2,82,40,00/- by the Ld.CIT(A) is on the mistaken ground that the cost of new residential house property purchased by the assessee for claiming deduction u/s. 54 amounting to Rs. 1,03,60,000/- where as the actual cost .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... unting to Rs. 2,82,40,000/- as long term capital gain. It is undisputed fact that the assessee had purchased a new property on 17.03.2023 from M/s. DRA Projects Pvt. Ltd. represented by its general power of attorney holder M/s. Prestige Estates Projects Ltd. at a cost price of Rs. 18,50,00,000/- (page 6 of the sale deed) and paid the stamp duty amounting to Rs. 1,03,60,000/- on the same. There fore the total cost of purchase shall be taken at Rs. 19,53,60,000/-. We are of the opinion that the Ld.CIT(A) on the mistaken ground had disallowed the claim of deduction u/s. 54 amounting to Rs. 2,82,40,000/- treating Rs. 1,03,60,000/- as the cost of new asset which is in fact only the stamp duty paid by the assessee. Therefore, the entire purchase .....

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