TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 1014X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n SMT. KG. RUKMINIAMMA [ 2010 (8) TMI 482 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]. As decided in SHRI. B.J. BADRINATH [ 2018 (11) TMI 1168 - ITAT BANGALORE] ratio of the judgement of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. K.G. Rukminiyamma (supra) applies to also 54F of the Act since both section i.e. 54 54F of the Act are pari materia. Moreover, in the case of other co-owners, it has been submitted by the Ld. A.R. that claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act was allowed by the A.O. This assertion made by the Ld. A.R. was not controverted by the Ld. D.R. Amendment to section 54 54F, restricting the claim of deduction to one residential unit was introduced by Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 1.4.2015 (i.e. from AY 2015-16). S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant s case as per CIT(A)-2, which is not correct. The said decision is applicable in the case of your appellant too, and your appellant is entitled for exemption u/s 54F of the Act on all the flats received by him for transfer of 60% land to builders instead of one flat as held by CIT(A)-2. 5. The Hon ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in the case of Sri B.J. Badrinath Vs. ITO Ward 4(3)(1) ITA No.2938/Bang/2018 dated 16.11.2018, has held that the decision in the case of CIT Vs. K.G. Rukminiyamma applies for exemption u/s 54 and also 54F of the I.T. Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: Assessee along with his three brothers had inherited a property from their father. The assessee and co-owners of the property ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rukamaniyamma an existing house was demolished and constructed number of flats by the developer and 50% of them were received by her in lieu of the building given to the developer for development. Whereas in the appellant s case it was a land owned by 4 people entered into development agreement together with the developer and in lieu of transfer of such land each land owner received certain number of flats. Thus, the facts of the case relied on by the appellant are not squarely applicable to the facts of the appellant s case therefore, this ground is dismissed. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. A.R. relied on the grounds raised. The Ld. D.R. strongly supported the orders p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B.J. Badrinath Vs. ITO in ITA No.2938/Bang/2018 (order dated 16.11.2018) had held that ratio of the judgement of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. K.G. Rukminiyamma (supra) applies to also 54F of the Act since both section i.e. 54 54F of the Act are pari materia. Moreover, in the case of other co-owners, it has been submitted by the Ld. A.R. that claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act was allowed by the A.O. This assertion made by the Ld. A.R. was not controverted by the Ld. D.R. 8. The amendment to section 54 54F, restricting the claim of deduction to one residential unit was introduced by Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 1.4.2015 (i.e. from AY 2015-16). Since we are concerned with assessment year 2009-10, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
