TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1956X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of the CIT(A) who has passed reasoned order and upheld the same and dismiss grounds of appeal of the Revenue. - ITA No.1544/Bang/2017 And CO No.26/Bang/2018 - - - Dated:- 22-4-2019 - SHRI A.K GARODIA AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JJ. Appellant by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR) Respondent by : Shri K Seshadri, C.A ORDER SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, J. The Revenue has filed appeal against the order dated25.04.2016 of CIT(A)-12, Bengaluru passed u/s 143(3) and 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the asst. year 2013- 14. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax( Appeals)-12, Bengaluru is contrary to the law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nancial facts found that the assessee has sold immovable property along with his sister on 21/2/2013 for a total sale consideration of ₹ 11,00,50,000/- and the assesses share was worked out to ₹ 6,90,00,000/- and after claiming cost inflation index and improvement of ₹ 13,49,752/- long term capital gain determined at ₹ 6,76,02,248/-. Against long term capital gains the assessee has claimed exemption u/s 54F by investment in residential property at New York . Assessee filed the submissions supporting the investments made outside the country referred by the AO at page 2 and 3. The AO is of the opinion that the assessee shall not be eligible for claim of exemption for making investment outside the country and declaimed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on outside the country is effective from asst. year 2015-16 as per the Finance Bill and supported the orders of the CIT(A). 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The sole matriks of the disputed issue is with respect of granting exemption u/s 54F in respect of investment in Residential Property outside the country . 7. The ld DR contention that the section does not allow the claim of investment outside the country and should be restricted in India. We find that the ld CIT(A) has dealt on the provisions and the Finance Act and the amendments at page 9 para 5 of the order which read as under:- As all the above grounds from ground nos. 3 to 16 are interrelated and in effect contend on the same i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e investment in new property was made in Singapore. The subsequent amendment in sections 54 and 54F do not have any implication assessment years prior to assessment year 2015-16 as the statute itself provides -'hat the amendments are effective from 01.04.2015. The assessing officer had not followed the decision of ITAT Bengaluru on the d that an appeal had been filed before the High Court. It is not a valid argument. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others v Kamlakshi Finance Corporation, AIR 1992 SC 71, the order of appellate authority is binding on the subordinate authorities unless stayed by a competent Court. The court held as under: The principles of judicial discipline require that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
