Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 1098 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of the deduction claimed u/s 54 - two flats situated on different storey - Held that:- There is nothing in these sections, which require the residential house to be constructed in a particular manner. The only requirement is that it should be for the residential use and not for commercial use.We do not think that the fact that the residential house consists of several independent units can be permitted to act as an impediment to the allowance of the deduction under section 54/54F. It is neither expressly nor by necessary implication prohibited. Thus we reverse the order of the ld CIT(A) and allow deduction claimed U/s 54 of the Act by the assessee on two flats even on different storey. See Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Gita Duggal [2013 (3) TMI 101 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. - Decided in favour of assessee Disallowance of indexed cost of improvement - Held that:- CIT(A) not allowed the expenses claimed against the cost of acquisition from the total sale consideration on the ground that the evidence filed by the assessee are not reliable but neither the Assessing Officer nor the ld CIT(A) has verified the evidence, when the burden has been shifted by the assessee on the revenue on the basis of exemption claimed by the assessee where the particulars of civil engineer as well as name and address of the labourer have been given. The Assessing Officer has not issued any query letter to confirm the expenses as genuine. He simply discarded the evidence filed by the assessee, which is not permitted under the law. Even this indexed cost on boundary wall is not allowed by the lower authorities then the investment in two flats is about ₹ 42,92,921/-. The assessee invested much more than the capital gain calculated by the Assessing Officer, therefore, this addition is not called for. - Decided in favour of assessee
|