Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 564 - AT - Income TaxDenial of deduction being interest on a housing loan, in the computation of his income u/s.22 - Held that:- A.R. during hearing, would take us through the interest certificate issued by the concerned bank, which clearly reflects the assessee’s name as among the names of the borrowers and, in fact, in the first place (PB pg. 5), i.e., along with that of his spouse as the second borrower. Further, in first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) specifically asked the assessee if his case was that the investment in the house was made by him in the name of his wife, and to which he categorically denied. We see no reason for the disallowance in the circumstances and, accordingly, direct its deletion. Denial of the cost of improvement - Held that:- Any addition and/or alteration to the house, enhancing its functional utility, so as to qualify as an improvement, would also require being notified to the housing society or even approval of the relevant authorities. In fact, apart from nonspecification of the work, so that the very basis of the assessee’s claim remains unknown, the certificate speaks of the renovation work having been carried out during the years 1997-98 and 2001-02, implying the relevant financial years. How could renovation be carried out in f.y. 1997-98, whereat the house was, by own admission, purchased? The additional loan of ₹ 2 lacs from the bank was sanctioned on 06/9/2001 (PB pg. 8), which is claimed to be the source of the investment, with even the assessee claiming the improvement to have been carried out in the year 2001, contradicting the said certificate. For the reasons afore-stated, we are inclined to be in agreement with the Revenue of the assessee as having been unable to establish its claim of having undertaken improvement of its house in 2001. Deduction u/s.54 on the capital gains denied - Held that:- Assessee being not eligible for deduction u/s.54 in view of the non-satisfaction of the primary condition of acquisition of house property within the time period stipulated u/s.54(1). The investment of the capital gains therein, naturally, is to be within this time period, for which a mechanism is provided. This represents the second limb of the provision; the return of income for the relevant year being, it may be appreciated, required by law to be filed by the due date u/s. 139(1). The assessee’s claim for deduction u/s. 54, which extends up to the entire LTCG, accordingly, fails.
|