Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 594 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 54/54F of the Act construction of more then one unit / floor in a house - Held that:- Following Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Gita Duggal [2013 (3) TMI 101 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - the assessee's claim for deduction u/s 54/54F of the Act in respect of the house/units in the first and second floors holding that they were separate and independent residential units having separate entrances and cannot be considered as one unit to enable the assessee to claim the deduction - The Tribunal expresses the view that the words 'a residential house' appearing in Section 54/54F of the Act cannot be construed to mean a single residential house since u/s 13(2) of the General Clauses Act, a singular includes plural - Section 54/54F uses the expression 'a residential house'. The expression used in not 'a residential unit' - A person may construct a house according to his plans and requirements - Most of the houses are constructed according to the needs and requirements and even compulsions - We are therefore, unable to see how or why the physical structuring of the new residential house, whether it is lateral or vertical, should come in the way of considering the building as a residential house - the residential house consists of several independent units cannot be permitted to act as an impediment to the allowance of the deduction u/s - 54/54F - It is neither expressly nor by necessary implication prohibited Decided in favour of Assessee. Non-monetary consideration Cost Indexation Index Held that:- Following Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Gita Duggal [2013 (3) TMI 101 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Non-monetary consideration have to be taken as consideration towards purchase of property and in Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Manjula J. Shah [2011 (10) TMI 406 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] it was held that the benefit of indexation shall be available from the year when previous owner first acquired it. If expression "held by assessee" interpreted differently to give benefit of indexation from the period when assessee acquired it, would defeat the purpose of statute. If the object of the legislature is to tax the gains arising on transfer of a capital acquired under a gift or will by including the period for which the said asset was held by the previous owner in determining the period for which the said asset was held by the assessee, then that object cannot be defeated by excluding the period for which the said asset was held by the previous owner while determining the indexed cost of acquisition of that asset to the assessee Decided in favour of Assessee and against Revenue.
|