TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1745X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence because in this tribunal order, a judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Nathu Hansraj [1976 (1) TMI 29 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] was followed without noticing the changes in the provisions of section 54 in A. Y. 1958 – 69 and 2013 – 14 which was before the tribunal in this case. Hence, on this aspect of the objection of the lower authorities that the new two flats are not for own residential use of the assessee, find no merit because there is no such requirement of law at present although it was earlier as per the provisions of section 54 in AY 1968-69 as reproduced by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court. As examine the merit in this objection of the lower authorities that deduction u/s 54 is allowable for only o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut of these three flats, one flat is on Ground Floor (G1) and remaining two flats are on third floor (T1 T2). He further pointed out that learned CIT (A) has also noted in the same Para that two flats bearing Nos. g1 and T2 were transferred by the assessee to her brother and sister by way of gift deeds and therefore, these two flats were not used by the assessee for her own residential purpose. Thereafter, he submitted that in Para 9.2 of his order, learned CIT (A) has taken note of a judgment of Hon ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Engee Industrial Services vs. UOI, 2004 (164) E.L.T. 242 (Kar.) and reproduced Para 17 of that judgment in which, Hon ble Karnataka High Court took note of three judgments of Hon ble apex court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Kumar Nathan (Supra) and therefore, this tribunal order is not laying down a binding precedence. He submitted copy of a tribunal order rendered in the case of Smt. Nethravathi vs. ITO in ITA No. 2630/bang/2017 dated 25.04.2018 and pointed out that in this case, the tribunal has followed a judgment of Hon ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of K. G. Rukmminiamma as reported in 331 ITR 211. He pointed out that it was held by Hon ble Karnataka High Court in this case that the a appearing in section 54F should not be construed in Singular but should be understood in plural. He also submitted that section 54 and 54F are pari materia. He also submitted that the amendment in section 54 (1) by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01.04.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee, I find no merit because there is no such requirement of law at present although it was earlier as per the provisions of section 54 in AY 1968 69 as reproduced by Hon ble Gujarat High Court. 5. Now I examine the merit in this objection of the lower authorities that deduction u/s 54 is allowable for only one flat in view of the word a residential house. On this aspect, the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of K. G. Rukmminiamma (Supra). Relevant Para of this judgment is Para 10 and the same is reproduced herein below for ready reference. 10. The context in which the expression 'a residential house' is used in s. 54 makes it clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
