Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 1651 - ITAT DELHIDeduction u/s 54 - interpretation of the word “a residential house” - investment in one of the properties, but not in two differently located house properties - assessee made investment in one of the properties, but not in two differently located house properties - deduction denied as investment made in second house property by the appellant as deduction is allowable with respect to investment made only in one residential property - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Madras High Court in Tilokchand & Sons [2019 (4) TMI 713 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has held that the dislocation of newly purchased residential houses will not alter the position for interpretation of the word “a residential house” to the effect that it may include more than one residential houses. It also considered the impact of the amendment by Finance (No. 2) Act of 2014 with effect from 1.04.2015 which could operate only prospectively from Assessment Year 2015-16. The present case before us is prior to that. Further the Hon’ble High Court has also considered the decision cited by the learned Assessing Officer in para No. 13 of that order. In view of this we hold that assessee is also entitled to deduction under Section 54 of the Act in both the house properties even though they are geographically distantly located in the same city. Further the learned CIT (Appeals) has also failed to appreciate that amendment with effect from Finance Act, 2014 is not a clarificatory amendment and does not operate retrospectively, but prospectively. In view of this both the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed.
|