TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1440X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the only stipulation was to invest in a new residential property and that there was no scope for importing the requirement of making such investment in a residential property located in India. On similar analogy, in the present case too, we do not have any reason to uphold the stand of the Assessing Officer that the exemption under Section 54 of the Act is to be allowed only if the investment is made in residential property in India. - Decided against revenue. - ITA No.6883/MUM/2014 (AY. 2011-12) C.O.NO.90/MUM/2016 (Arising out of 6883/MUM/2014 ,AY. 2011-12) - - - Dated:- 26-4-2017 - Shri G.S.Pannu And Shri Pawan Singh, JJ. Appellant by: Shri Suman Kumar Respondent by: Shri Hari S. Raheja ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the sale of residential property in India in investing the same in the residential apartment in New York, USA(Outside India) without appreciating the fact that claim of exemption of Section 54F of the I T. Act, has not been allowed by the Ahmedabad ITAT in the case of Leena J Shah 6 SOT 721 (ITO Ahmedabad) 3. In this appeal, although Revenue has raised multiple Grounds of appeal, but the solitary grievance is against the decision of the CIT(A) in allowing assessee s claim for exemption under section 54 of the Act. Briefly put, the relevant facts are that the respondent assessee is a Non-resident Indian(NRI) and during the year under consideration he, inter-alia, earned a long term capital gain of ₹ 67,06,652/- from sale o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Before us, the Ld. Representative for the assessee pointed out that decision of the Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Smt. Leena J. Shah(surpa), which has been relied upon by the Assessing Officer has since been reversed by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in its judgment in ITA No. 483 of 2006 dated 14/06/2016, a copy of which has been placed on record. Apart therefrom, the Ld. Representative for the assessee pointed out that the following decisions of the Tribunal support the stand of the assessee, which has rightly been upheld by the CIT(A) :- (1) Mrs. Prema P. Shah vs. ITO, (2006) 100 ITD 60(Mum) (2) ITO vs. Dr. Girish M. Shah, ITA No.3582/Mum/2009 dated 17/2/2010. (3) ITO vs. Shri Anil P. Mukhi, ITA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... new residential property and that there was no scope for importing the requirement of making such investment in a residential property located in India. On similar analogy, in the present case too, we do not have any reason to uphold the stand of the Assessing Officer that the exemption under Section 54 of the Act is to be allowed only if the investment is made in residential property in India. Considered in the aforesaid light and in the absence of any contrary decision, the parity of reasoning laid down by the Honorable Gujarat High Court has to prevail and we find no reason to distract from the conclusion arrived by the CIT (A). Accordingly, the order of the CIT (A) is hereby affirmed and Revenue fails in its appeal. 6. In so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
