Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 374 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of assessee’s claim made u/s. 54/54F - Long term capital gains earned by the assessee was invested in purchase of two houses/flats instead of one residential unit - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the amendment in section 54 was made w.e.f. 01.04.2015, which does not fall within the assessment year under consideration. There is nothing on record from the side of Revenue to justify that the said amendment was made applicable with retrospective effect. In such circumstances. As regards the disallowance on the premise of investment in two residential flats, we find that in the case of V.R. Karpaam (Smt.) [2013 (8) TMI 477 - ITAT CHENNAI] Tribunal held that ‘a residential house’ in the context could not be construed as a singular and the meaning given in section 54 would apply to section 54F also. New asset defined in section 54F as ‘a residential house’ has to be understood in plural. It is not necessary that all residential units should be single door number allotted. Tribunal, following the ratio in CIT v. K.G. Rukminiamma [2010 (8) TMI 482 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], allowed the claim of assessee - no justification to discard the claim made by the assessee u/s. 54 of the Act in the present case. We are, therefore, not inclined to sustain the impugned order. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|