Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
CGST - Acts + GST Rates GST Ntf. GST Forms GST - Manual GST - FAQ State GST Acts SGST Ntf. I. Tax Manual
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

ACIT, Circle-27 (1) , New Delhi Versus Sh. Mohinder Kumar Jain

Deduction u/s 54F - satisfaction of relevant conditions - owning more than one house - another house was under construction - Held that:- What is relevant is whether the assessee satisfies the conditions of section 54F of the Act in the year under consideration. Before us, the Ld. senior DR could not controvert findings of the Ld. CIT-(A). In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the assessee is entitled for deduction under section 54F of the Act because house .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

enditure - Held that:- Assessing Officer has failed to bring on record any documentary evidence to establish that business promotion expenses were utilised for personal purpose. Similarly regarding for disallowance out of vehicle running and maintenance expenses, the only basis adopted by the Assessing Officer, is status of the assessee and no other cogent material has been brought on record for disallowing the expenses. In our opinion, the finding of the Ld. CIT-(A) on the issue in dispute is w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

-(A) ] for assessment year 2011-12, raising following grounds: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law CIT(A) has erred in- 1. Allowing the relief of ₹ 1,59,77,680/- u/s 54F of the I.T. Act. 2. Ignoring the fact that the assessee after expanding more than ₹ 1 crores in previous years unable to make the "Mehendi Farm" to habitual condition. 3. Ignoring the fact that the assessee accepted the disallowance of ₹ 86,00,000/- u/s 54F of the Act for the AY 2010 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ary concern M/s. Chelsea Mills. During the year, the assessee sold 5 house properties and invested sale consideration received in construction of another property. The assessee filed return of income on 30/09/2011 declaring total income of ₹ 1,73,68,240/-. In the return of income filed, the assessee claimed deduction under section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) for investment in residential house against the capital gain on sale of house properties. The case was select .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to 3 of the appeal are related to the deduction amounting to ₹ 1,59,77,680/- under section 54F of the Act, which has been allowed by the Ld. CIT-(A). 5. The facts in brief in respect of issue in dispute are that during the year under consideration the assessee sold following five properties and computed the capital gain and deduction under section 54F of the Act for investment in construction of house at, 9, Mehandi Farms, Bhatti Mines, New Delhi as under: S. No. Description of property S .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

377; 81,50,632/- Tax paid on gain (B) Building on above ₹ 47,22,800/- ₹ 44,95,088/- Adjusted against block of assets of building 6. As regarding claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act, the Assessing Officer informed the assessee that deduction under section 54F of the Act has already been allowed in assessment year 2009-10 amounting to ₹ 47,84,000/- for investment made in construction of House at 9, Mehandi Farms, Bhatti Mines, New Delhi. He further noted that claim of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

54F of the Act. The Assessing Officer did not accept the contention of the assessee and disallowed the deduction amounting to ₹ 1,59,77,680/-claimed by the assessee. 7. The Ld. CIT-(A) after considering the submission of the assessee allowed the deduction under section 54F of the Act with observations as under: 5.1 It is further noted that although the appellant had one house at D-3/8 Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, the same was let out during the year, which is also evident from the computation .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

family at E-222,Naraina Vihar, New Delhi. This fact is also evident from the documents such as telephone bill, copy of passports and copy of correspondences with IFCI. The appellant shifted to his residential house at 9, Mehendi Farms, Bhati Mines, Chhatarpur, New Delhi at 21.7.2010 which is evident from the completion certificate as well as the other evidences such as copies of Passports, identity cards issued by the election commission of India etc. which is available on the record. It is wor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Delhi, the appellant was not owning another house other than the new asset i.e 9, Mehendi Farms, Bhati Mines, Chhatarpur, New Delhi on the date of transfer of the original assets (in this case, lands and shop, as discussed earlier). Therefore, It is clear that the appellant was not having more than one residential house (i.e. at vasant vihar) other than the new asset (i.e. at 9, Mehendi Farms, Bhati Mines, Chhatarpur, New Delhi) on the date of transfer of original asset. Therefore, in my humble .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2011-12 was less than the cost of construction of the residential property at 9, Mehendi Farms, Bhati Mines, Chhatarpur, New Delhi. On these facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant is eligible for the deduction u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act and the AO is directed to impugned addition of ₹ 1,59,77,680/-. 8. Before us the Ld. Senior DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the assessee had already availed deduction und .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed as another residential property for disqualification for deduction under section 54F of the Act. 10. We have heard the rival submission and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the Ld. CIT-(A) has allowed the deduction under section 54F of the Act on the following three grounds: 1. In the assessment year 2009-10, the Assessing Officer has allowed deduction under section 54F of the Act on same set of circumstances and therefore in view of the principle of consistency, the dedu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ti Mines, New Delhi was under construction and cannot be said residential house owned by the assessee. 4. There is no bar in the section 54F of the Act for claiming deduction for second time or third time for the same property, if the cost of the property is within the capital gain arose to the assessee. 11. The Ld. Sr. DR contended that assessee has accepted the disallowance of ₹ 86,00,000/- under section 54F of the Act for assessment year 2010-11 and therefore the deduction in the year u .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

at the assessee is entitled for deduction under section 54F of the Act because house property at 9, Mehandi Farms was under construction during the year under consideration and it cannot be said as another residential house owned by the assessee. As the assessee owned only one residential house at D-3/8 Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, the assessee is entitled for deduction under section 54F Act for investment in construction of the house property at 9, Mehandi Farms. In our considered opinion, the find .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

essing Officer, whereas the Ld. counsel relied on the order of the Ld. CIT-(A). 14. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The Assessing Officer made disallowance of ₹ 50,000/- on the ground that involvement of personal nature of expenses cannot be ruled out. Disallowance of ₹ 1,20,000/- out of vehicle running and maintenance expenses was made only on the ground of the status of the assessee. The Ld. CIT-(A) deleted both the additions observi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version