Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 629 - AT - Income TaxExemption u/s 54F - Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) - separate unit - constructing a residential house - Held that:- In the present appeal, no doubt flat No.1502 is situated at 15th Floor while the other flats were situated on 13th & 14th Floor of the same building and the claimed deduction was rejected by the AO with respect to flat situated in 15th Floor by holding that it is separate and residential unit having separate entrance, therefore, it is a separate unit, consequently, cannot be considered as one unit to enable the assessee to claim the deduction. The fact remains that all the three flats are in the same building and also are situated on floors above each other i.e. 13th, 14th & 15th Floor, while the flats at 13th & 14th Floor are duplex flats joined with each other but the fact remains the third flat is situated on the immediate next floor i.e. 15th floor of the same building which is in the immediate vicinity. This question has been settled in CIT vs Gita Duggal [2011 (6) TMI 890 - ITAT DELHI] and also in SMT. KG. RUKMINIAMMA [2010 (8) TMI 482 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]. As further noted that the SLP, filed by the Revenue was dismissed by Hon'ble Apex Court. The only requirement, as per the section, is that it should be a residential house and there is nothing in the section which requires that the residential house should be built in a particular manner. A person may construct a house according to his requirements/needs and sometime due to compulsions. There may be several such consideration for a person while constructing a residential house. Identical ratio was laid in SMT. KG. RUKMINIAMMA [2010 (8) TMI 482 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]. So far as in CIT vs Raman Kumar Suri [2012 (12) TMI 421 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] is concerned, it was decided rather in favour of the assessee, wherein, two flats were interconnected as one residential unit, wherein, exemption was disallowed on different facts. This decision is dated 27/11/2012, whereas, the decision in the case of CIT vs Syed Ali Adil [2011 (8) TMI 1104 - ITAT HYDERABAD] is of later date and the decision in CIT vs Gita Duggal is of [2011 (6) TMI 890 - ITAT DELHI]. The facts of the case of the present assessee are similar to the facts in Gita Duggal (decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court) and the cases from Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. Thus, considering the totality of facts and the aforesaid decisions, this ground of the assessee is allowed. Addition on account of loss under the head ‘Income from House Property” - Held that:- We direct the Ld. Assessing Officer to examine the factual matrix and then decide in accordance with law. The assessee be given opportunity of being heard. Thus, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes. Demand of ₹ 49,04,380/-, as per the assessee, there is calculation mistake - Held that:- The assessee is directed to furnish the necessary evidence to substantiate its claim. Assessing Officer is directed to verify the claim of the assessee and if any calculation mistake is found, the same may be directed to be verified/corrected. Otherwise, AO may decide in accordance with law, thus, this ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
|