9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 401X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of Section 54F of the Income Tax Act 1961, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing the deduction of Rs.51,25,100/- claimed by the assessee under that Section?" 3. The assessee is an individual. He retired from IOCL. His income consists of income by way of salary, from house property and other sources. He inherited 50% share in a residential house in E-2/13, Vasant Vihar, Delhi in 2003 from his father. This was in July 1968. The other half share was inherited by his brother. In the year which ended on 31.03.2008, both the brothers jointly sold the property which gave rise to proportionate capital gains in the assessee's hands. In computing the capital gains, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dopting the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd : 88 ITR 192 which says that if a statutory provision is capable of more than one view, then the view which favours the tax payer should be preferred. The Tribunal also observed that Section 54F being a beneficial provision enacted for encouraging investment in residential houses should be liberally interpreted. 7. We have no hesitation in agreeing with the view taken by the Tribunal. Apart from the fact that the judgments of the Madras and Karnataka High Courts (supra) are in favour of the assessee, the revenue fairly brought to our notice a similar view of this Court in CIT Vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora : (2012) 342 ITR 38 (Del.). That was also a case which aros ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that the predominant judicial view, including that of this Court, is that for the purposes of Section 54F, the new residential house need not be purchased by the assessee in his own name nor is it necessary that it should be purchased exclusively in his name. It is moreover to be noted that the assessee in the present case has not purchased the new house in the name of a stranger or somebody who is unconnected with him. He has purchased it only in the name of his wife. There is also no dispute that the entire investment has come out of the sale proceeds and that there was no constribution from the assessee's wife. 10. Having regard to the rule of purposive construction and the object which Section 54F seeks to achieve and respectfully a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
