TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 998X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JP/2017 - - - Dated:- 12-12-2017 - SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri S.L. Poddar And Ms. Isha Kanoongo (Adv) For The Revenue : Smt. Poonam Roy (DCIT) ORDER PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. This is the appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order of the ld. CIT(A)-5, Jaipur dated 17/03/2017 for the A.Y. 2007-08, wherein the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the ld Assessing Officer in passing the order U/s 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is void ab initio deserves to be quashed. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) has erred i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r daughter. 6.2 In the Remand Report, the Assessing Officer has observed that Stamp Duty and Registration charges of ₹ 1,30,720 paid in respect of the new house at Nemi Nagar Extension, Jaipur is allowable. He has further stated that 50% of investment of ₹ 7,25,630 made in the second house purchased in the name of the assessee and her daughter can be allowed since assessee is 50% owner of the said property. 6.3 I have considered the remand report, the assessment order and the submissions of the appellant. As regards the stamp duty and registration charges in respect of the new house at Nemi Nagar Extension, Jaipur, it is seen that the correct allowable amount is ₹ 1,51,030 versus amount of ₹ 1,30,720 ment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2012) 24 taxmann.com 261 (Mum) has considered such issue and decided as under: 18. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The short controversy is as to whether exemption u/s 54 is available in respect of one house or more than one house. In the present case, the assessee was allotted two flats on two different stories which he claimed as eligible for exemption u/s 54. Admittedly there is no unity of construction between such flats. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sushila M. Jhaveri (supra) has categorically held that the exemption u/s 54 is available only in respect of one house and not more than one. It is true that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of D. Ana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fairly indicates that the exemption u/s 54 is available only in respect of one house and not more than one house. The judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court which is binding on the Tribunal, can under no circumstances, be ignored in preference to the judgment of any other Hon'ble High Courts. It is relevant to note that the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Gita Duggal {supra) is distinguishable inasmuch as in that case the assessee was allotted basement and ground floor on which exemption was given but the said benefit was denied on the first floor and second floor as they were let out. There was no dispute that all the basement, ground floor, first floor and second floor constituted one resident ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
