Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 864 - ITAT CUTTACKEntitlement to cost of improvement and consequent indexed cost of improvement - Assessee jointly owned by the assessee and his wife - HELD THAT:- Structures show boundary wall, gate, windows, fitting etc but it is not clear that this structure is located on the same land which was sold by the assessee and his wife. As we have noted above, the assessee’s wife who was holding 50% title on the said land, has not been allowed cost of improvement or indexed cost of improvement by the AO and no further appeal or any other proceedings have been initiated by her accepting the rejection of claim by the AO. No hesitation to hold that the assessee is not entitled for any cost of improvement and consequent indexed cost of improvement. Therefore, this claim of the assessee being not sustainable, stands dismissed. Benefit of section 54F denied as no investment whatsoever has been made in the name of the assessee - HELD THAT:- In this case, the assessee has purchased property in the name of his wife and son we are of the view that the exemption u/s. 54F cannot be denied to the assessee. In view of cases RAVINDER KUMAR ARORA [2011 (9) TMI 343 - DELHI HIGH COURT], we set aside the orders of lower authorities and direct the AO to recalculate the exemption u/s.54F of the Act keeping in view the amount of investment made by the assessee towards purchase of said flat as per provisions of Section 54F. Also see SHRI KAMAL WAHAL [2013 (1) TMI 401 - DELHI HIGH COURT]
|