TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1602X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Section 54F of the Act. The Revenue has accepted the above two decisions of the Tribunal. This for the reason that it has not been able to show that any appeal has been filed from the two aforesaid decisions of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal. The impugned order has merely been followed by the impugned order of the Tribunal. Improvement cost inclusion in the cost of the new asset while working out the exemption under Section 54F - Held that:- The impugned order of the Tribunal records “we have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. There is no dispute that the assessee has incurred an expenditure of ₹ 58.26 lakhs on the improvement of the flat purchased by the assessee to make in a ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2)(a) and that the assessee could not prove that any expenditure was incurred by the previous owner for acquiring the tenancy rights? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in overruling the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) and holding that the expenditure of ₹ 58,26,773/purportedly incurred by the assessee on renovating the new asset, after its purchase by the assessee, to make it habitable would be included in the cost of the new asset and would be allowable as exemption under Section 54F of the Act? (3) Without prejudice to the above, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been filed from the two aforesaid decisions of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal. The impugned order has merely been followed by the impugned order of the Tribunal. No change in facts and/or law from that existing when the Coordinate Benches passed the order and in the present appeal has been shown. (b) In the above view, the question as formulated does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 4. Regarding Question no.(3): (a) Mr. Chhotaray, the learned counsel for the Revenue also urges that the impugned order of the Tribunal holding on fact that the expenditure of ₹ 58.26 lakhs had been incurred to make the purchased house habitable, is factually not correct. In support he sought to d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
