Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2020 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 924 - HC - Income TaxExemption u/s 54F - assessee’s claim was rejected as the AO noting that the land on which the assessee had claimed to build the residential house was in the name of his mother - Tribunal denied benefit u/s 54F as like Commissioner (Appeals) and held that the benefit u/s 54F is only available to an assessee if the newly purchased / constructed residential house is owned / held in the name of the assessee - HELD THAT:- Commissioner (Appeals) followed the decision of Nagpur Bench of this Court in the case of Prakash vs. Income-Tax Officer and others [2008 (9) TMI 234 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein the Assessee purchased the property in the name of adopted son and not on his own name, he was denied the benefit. While laying down this proposition the Court took a review of the law laid down by other High Courts and followed the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Podar Cement P. Ltd. [1997 (5) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] . The Division Bench distinguished the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Mir Gulam Ali Khan (Late) v. CIT [ [1984 (12) TMI 9 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] It is the contention of Petitioner that the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Ravinder Kumar Arora [2011 (9) TMI 343 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Kamal Wahal [2013 (1) TMI 401 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has given liberal interpretation to the term ‘purchased’ occurring in the section 54F. We note that the Delhi High Court in the case of Ravinder Arora [2011 (9) TMI 343 - DELHI HIGH COURT] had relied upon the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Late Mir Gulam Khan [1984 (12) TMI 9 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] which has already been distinguished by this Court in the case of Prakash Vs. Income Tax Officer [2008 (9) TMI 234 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] . In view of this law laid down by this Court, substantial questions of law as framed do not arise. - Decided against assessee.
|