Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (2) TMI 728 - AT - Income TaxAddition of the investment claimed on the renovation of the house property - Held that:- When the AO got satisfied regarding renovation of the house carried out by the assessee during the year under assessment to the tune of ₹ 13,00,000/- on the basis of bills and vouchers produced by the assessee, contention of the assessee that the amount of ₹ 1,88,820/- was spent by way of labour charges given to the daily wagers who have worked for a period of three months is sustainable. One cannot be expected to procure the vouchers for making payments to the daily wagers who even keeps on changing as per availability in the labour market. So, we find no illegality or perversity in the findings returned by the CIT (A). This ground is determined against the revenue. Entitlement to exemption u/s 54F - property purchased in the joint name - Held that:- Perusal of the findings returned by ld. CIT (A) goes to prove that he has thrashed the matter threadbare by perusing the bank account maintained with State Bank of India vide which the entire reinvestment in purchasing the house has been made by the assessee, though the house was purchased in the joint name of the assessee as well as her daughter-in-law, Smt. Purabi Devi. So, when the source of funds invested in the house have come from assessee herself which she has got by selling her property for a sale consideration of ₹ 5,81,19,521/-, she cannot be denied the benefit of section 54 merely because of the fact that the property was also purchased in the joint name of her daughter-in-law. Moreover, the entire sale consideration received by the assessee form the sale of property was received through bank and Smt. Purabi Devi has undisputedly not invested any amount towards making payment of sale proceeds of the new property. Ratio in both cases CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora (2011 (9) TMI 343 - DELHI HIGH COURT ); and (ii) CIT vs. Kamal Wahal (2013 (1) TMI 401 - DELHI HIGH COURT) says that, “when new residential property has been purchased by the assessee in joint names of assessee and his close relative by investing the entire amount of long term capital gain, the assessee is entitled for full exemption u/s 54F of the Act.” - Decided against the revenue. Addition claimed u/s 54-EC on purchase of National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) Bonds - Held that:- Bare perusal of section 54-EC goes to prove that there is no mention that the long term investment in specified assets should be in the name of assessee only rather the core issue to be seen is as to what was the source of fund. No doubt, the bonds were purchased by way of cheques issued form joint account of the account holders but further perusal of the bank account goes to prove that the assessee has received ₹ 75,00,000/- as the sale consideration out of which the amount of purchase of long term specific assets were invested. So, following the ratio of the judgments in the cases of CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora and CIT vs. Kamal Wahal (supra), we are of the considered view that the assessee has rightly claimed deduction of the entire amount of ₹ 50,00,000/- invested by her. - Decided against the revenue.
|