9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eleted and Ground of the assessee is allowed. Allowability of deduction u/s 54F - Assessee claimed that two flats were constituted a single unit based on architectural plans and interior design - In this regard, architectural certificate was also furnished before the Bench. It is also acknowledged that the assessee has made substantive investment within the prescribed period by depositing in CGAS account, hence, we deem it necessary to allow the instant issue in favour of the assessee considering the judgment of Devdas Naik [ 2014 (7) TMI 173 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the impugned addition. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. - Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Membe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erence between the sale price declared and stamp duty value. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 2,68,92,241/- u/s 54F of the Act in respect of investment made in two flats i.e. Flat No.B-12, and Flat No.11, at Kalpataru Avana, Maharashtra. The Assessing Officer denied the deduction on the ground that the assessee owned three residential units at a time i.e. one flat at Kolkata and the aforementioned two flats in Maharashtra, which is a violation of the condition laid down u/s 54F of the Act and the purchase of new flat was not completed within the stipulated period of two years from the date of transfer of the original asset. Moreover, the assessee had not produced any evidence of deposit in the bank un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t by showing bank account details. Therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities are uncalled for. Another contention of the ld. AR is that the difference of Rs. 10,21,262/- represented only 2.7% of the total sale consideration of Rs. 37749550/- for the property sold and the assessee argued that the percentage is negligible and should not be triggered section 50C of the Act. The assessee contended that the minor variation should not attract the provisions of section 50C of the Act as Hon ble Courts previously held that negligible difference between the actual sale consideration and the stamp duty value should not be trigger addition u/s 50C of the Act. Therefore, Ground Nos.4 of the appeal should be allowed. The ld. AR in order to s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
