Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1891 - AT - Income TaxLTCG or STCG - gains arising on transfer of trade mark - AO had considered the gains arising on transfer of the trade mark to be short term in nature, whereas the Tribunal found it otherwise - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2016 (5) TMI 1549 - ITAT CHENNAI] allowing the claim of the assessee that the gains arising on transfer of the trade mark was long term in nature. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in this regard. Deduction u/s.54F - such claim was denied by the AO, considering the assessee to be owning more than one residential property, when he transferred the trade mark - CIT(A) had, on the other hand, found that one of the two properties was a commercial one and hence assessee was justified in claiming deduction u/s.54F - HELD THAT:- What we find is that neither the Ld.AO nor the Ld.CIT(A) had carefully not gone through the conveyance deeds through which the assessee had acquired the residential houses. AO had simply stated that letting out of a flat to a company for conducting its business did not change the nature of the flat. Ld.CIT(A) on the other hand, went by the pre-amble of the Conveyance Deed. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the question whether the assessee owned more than two residential properties and whether one of such property could be considered as commercial flat and could be excluded, for application of Sec.54F of the Act, requires a fresh look by the AO. We set-aside the order of the lower authorities and remit the question whether assessee was eligible to claim deduction u/s.54F of the Act, back to the file of the AO for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
|