Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 700 - AT - Income TaxClaim of deduction u/s 54/54F - second flat as the assessee has purchased two units, whereas as per the A.O. the Section states that “a” residential house should be purchased/constructed” - The Assessing Officer observed that both the units have separate main doors for each and the units were not adjoined together - HELD THAT:- On the facts of the case, the two residential units constructed by the Developer for the Assessee is “a” (one) residential house only, we observe that in any case, the Board having accepted all the decisions wherein courts have interpreted that the word “a” qualifies residential house and not the quantum/number of houses, for all years prior to the amendment deduction/benefit is available on multiple houses, this controversy does not survive. This is an acceptance by the Legislature that prior to the amendment deduction u/s. 54/54F is available on purchase of more than one residential unit also and that it has accepted the interpretation of the courts in this regard. The relevant assessment year under consideration is 2010-11 which is prior to the A.Y. 2015-16 wherein an amendment has been brought by the Finance Act, 2014. AO was not justified in declining the claim of exemption to the assessee in respect to two units of the house property allotted by the developer to the assessee. AO is directed to allow exemption in respect of both the units. Capital gain computation - Determination of the FMV as on 1.4.1981 - valuation to DVO - Action of the CIT(A) for referring the matter back to the DVO for determination of fair market value as on 01/4/1981 - HELD THAT:- Revenue makes a reference, to the DVO, in term of Section 55A of the Act, it should be of the opinion that the value determined by the Registered Valuer as the FMV of the property as on 1st April, 1981 is less than its FMV. Only on having formed the above opinion, it is entitled to call upon the DVO to submit a report with regard to its FMV as on 1st April, 1981. In the Assessee’s case neither the FMV as per the registered valuer’s valuation report was less that the FMV estimated by the DVO, nor is it a case where the FMV of the asset claimed by the Assessee is not supported by a registered valuer’s valuation report. Accordingly reference to the DVO was bad in law. We direct accordingly.
|