TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Arshia Basith [ 2018 (8) TMI 1359 - ITAT BANGALORE] the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal held that assessee would be entitled to deduction u/s. 54F of the Act even in respect of property purchased which is located outside India. In the case of assessee the deduction claimed should be examined in the parameters of section 54F of the Act in the light of decision cited before us. The AO is directed to apply the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision and allow the claim of deduction of assessee in accordance with the law, after affording assessee opportunity of being heard. Appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. - IT(IT)A No.2015/Bang/2019 - - - Dated:- 10-1-2020 - Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion cannot be claimed u/s. 54 of the Act which is applicable only when the capital asset sold is a residential asset. With regard to the deduction u/s. 54F of the Act, the AO was of the view that the said deduction is not available to investment of capital gain in purchase of property outside India. The AO therefore computed the capital gain of ₹ 1,89,50,133 on sale of property as follows:- (in Rupees) Sale consideration 2,00,00,000 Less : Expenses 4,35,000 Net Sale Consideration 1,95,65,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal in the case of ITO(IT), Ward 1(1), Bangalore v. Arshia Basith, IT(IT)A No.2768/Bang/2017 AY 2014-15, order dated 14.8.2018 wherein this Tribunal held that assessee would be entitled to benefit of deduction u/s. 54/54F of the Act on the property purchased outside India and that the amendment made to section 54F of the Act by the Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f. 2015 is applicable only prospectively from AY 2015-16 and not to earlier assessment year. By the said amendment, the provisions of section 54F(1) were amended whereby it was laid down that the new asset purchased or constructed by utilising the capital gain must be in India. He also relied on the decision of the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of ACIT v. Jai Kumar Gupta HUF, ITA No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e acquired only in India meaning thereby before this amendment it was not clear as to whether the benefit of section 54F can be given to residential house acquired in India or abroad. This issue was examined by the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Iqbal Jafar (supra) which was authored by one of the members of this Bench and it was held by the Tribunal that before the amendments, the benefit can also be given to the residential house acquired in abroad. The relevant observation of the Tribunal is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference: 9. Having heard the rival submissions and from a careful perusal of the orders of the authorities below, find that it has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Apex Court and variou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the words which are used. It is only when the words used are ambiguous that they would stand to be examined and considered on surrounding circumstances and constitutionally proposed practices. 13. We have also examined the order of the Tribunal in the case of Vinay Mishra (supra), in which it has been held that the words 'in India; cannot be read into section 54F when Parliament in its legislative wisdom has deliberately not used the words 'in India' in section 54F of the Act. The Tribunal accordingly held that assessee 's claim for exemption under section 54F of the Act shall be allowed since all conditions laid down in this section are satisfied for availing the said exemption, though he has acquired ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order of the Id. CIT(A), who has rightly adjudicated the issue in the light of the ratio laid down by the Tribunal in a number of cases. Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is confirmed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 4. Since the Tribunal has taken a view in similar set of facts, we find no justification to take a contrary view in this appeal. Accordingly, following the same, we hold that the assessee is entitled for deduction under section 54F of the Act. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). We accordingly confirm the same. 10. We are of the view that in the case of assessee the deduction claimed should be examined in the parameters of section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
