TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee. Accordingly, following the decision rendered in the case of Mrs. Jennifer Bhide (supra) and the decision rendered by the co-ordinate bench in the case of Shri Bhatkal Ramarao Prakash [ 2019 (2) TMI 1059 - ITAT BANGALORE] we hold that the assessee is entitled to full deduction u/s 54 of the Act. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to allow deduction u/s 54 of the Act as claimed by the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 2493/Bang/2019 - - - Dated:- 8-5-2020 - Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice President And Shri B R Baskaran, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri V.Srinivasan, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Rajendra Chandekar, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Benga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITO (ITA No.2692/Bang/2018 dated 04.01.2019). In the above said case, the assessee therein had purchased new residential house in his name, his wife and son. The AO restricted the claim made u/s 54F of the Act to 1/3rd of the cost of new house property. The co-ordinate bench followed the decision rendered by Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DIT(Intl.) vs. Mrs. Jennifer Bhida (2011)(15 taxmann.com 82)(Kar.) and held that the assessee is entitled to full deduction u/s 54F of the Act. The relevant observations made by the co-ordinate bench in the case of Shri Bhatkal Ramarao Prakash (supra) are extracted below:- 22. The next issue is as to whether the deduction u/s.54F of the Act has to be restricted to only 1/3rd of the cost o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no requirement that investment u/s.54EC should be in the name of Assessee only. In that case new asset was purchased in the name of the Assessee and her husband. The AO allowed deduction u/s.54EC only to the extent of 50% on the reasoning that deduction will be allowed only to the extent of investment made in the name of the Assessee. The Hon ble Karnataka High Court held that the entire consideration had flow from Assessee and no consideration had flown from her husband. Merely because the husband s name is also mentioned in the purchase document, the Assessee could not be denied the benefit of deduction. Similar view has been taken in the case of CIT Vs. Kamal Wahal (2013) 30 taxmann 34 (Delhi), Laxmi Narayan Vs. CIT (2018) 89 Taxmann 334 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20,00,000 15-02-2016 Stamp duty, Transfer duty and fee 66,15,200 16.02.2016 Reinvestment in new property 1,98,29,500 16.02.2016 3,32,80,000 16.02.2016 3,32,80,000 16.02.2016 TDS u/s 194IA 1,76,40,000 11,66,44,700 The assessee has also furnished copy of bank statement and the Ld A.R submitted that the above said payments are duly reflected in the bank acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
