TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1778X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-compute the assessment by allowing the addition as exempt as Long Term Capital Gain. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue. - I.T.A. No. 3782/Mum/2014 - - - Dated:- 31-3-2017 - SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM For the Appellant : Shri KiritSanghvi For the Respondent : Smt. Jyothilakshmi Nayak ORDER PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: The assesseehas filed the present appeal against the order dated 30.04.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A) ] relevant to the A.Y.2010- 11. 2. The assessee has raised the fol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... encashment to the tune of ₹ 4,04,320/- and claimed exempt u/s.10(10AA) of the Act. The leave encashment was allowable to the extent of ₹ 3 lakhs for A.Y.2010-11. Therefore an amount of ₹ 1,04,320/- was added to the income of the assessee. The assessee sold the flat at Bandra, Mumbai for a consideration of ₹ 4,30,00,000/-. The assessee showed Long Term Capital Gain to the tune of ₹ 1,74,03,119/-. The assessee claimed the said Long Term Capital Gain as exempt on account of purchase of another flat at Lower Parel in a project called Orbit Terraces as agreement entered into on 30.07.2010 and claimed the deduction u/s.54 of the Act. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee sold the flat on 03.02.2010 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e other hand the learned departmental representative has strongly relied upon the order of CIT(A) in question. In view of the argument advanced by the parties and perusing the record carefully, it is not in dispute that the assessee sold the flat at Bandra, Mumbai in a sale consideration of ₹ 4,30,00,000/- on 03-02-2010. The assessee received the Long Term Capital Gain to the tune of ₹ 1,74,03,119/- and claimed as exempted u/s.54 of the Act. The Assessing Officer declined the claim of the assessee on the ground that in view of the agreement the tentative date of possession was 30.06.2013. The Assessing Officer took the period into consideration between the date of sale on 03.02.2010 and tentative dated of possession on 30.06.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parted by the assessee and invested either in purchasing a residential house or in constructing a residential house. If after making the entire payment, merely because a registered sale deed had not been executed and registered in favour of the assessee before the period stipulated, he cannot be denied the benefit of Section 54F of the Act. Similarly, if he has invested the money in construction of a residential house, merely because the construction was not complete in all respects and it was not a fit condition to be occupied within the period stipulated, that would not disentitle the assessee from claiming the benefit under section 54F of the Act. 5. From the above it is evident that the claim of deduction is allowable based o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
