TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1847X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of the Act which has a fiction. Section.54F of the Act is a provision granting deduction to the assessee and therefore, it has a fiction. Hence, while interpreting the provision 54F of the Act, any other provision of the Act, which has a fiction, cannot be super imposed. Hence, in the given case before us, for the purpose of Section.54F of the Act, it has to be construed that the assessee is not the owner of the residential house at 24, Vijayaraghavachari Road, T Nagar, Chennai-17 and therefore he has only one house, accordingly he is the entitled to claim of exemption U/s.54F of the Act as held by the Ld. CIT (A). Hence, we do not find it necessary to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT (A). - Decided against revenue. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore the Ld.Assessing Officer that the second house property No.24, Vijayaraghavachari Road, T Nagar, Chennai-17 was settled by him in favor of his spouse Mrs.Shanthi Thomas on 24.02.2003 vide settlement deed. Therefore, the property is now owned by Mrs.Shanthi Thomas with all rights and titles and interest over the property. Only for the limited purpose of the requirements U/s.4(1)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act, the property was included in the Wealth Tax Act assessment of the assessee. It was therefore argued that the assessee was eligible for deduction U/s.54F of the Act because as on the date of the sale, the assessee has only one residential property. However, the Ld. Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee because as per Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that as per s.27(1) the appellant is a deemed owner of the property and hence he is not eligible for exemption u/s 54F. She has failed to note that s.27(1) is a deeming provision applicable only for Ss.22 to 26 in computing the annual value of the property and such deeming provision applicable only for Ss.22 to 26 in computing the annual value of the property and such deeming provisions cannot be extended to deny the exemption U/s.54F of the Act. In view of the above, l find the denial of exemption of s.54F is not in order and I direct the AO to withdraw the disallowance. 6. Before us, the Ld. D.R. argued in favour of the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer whereas the Ld. A.R., relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT (A). 7. We have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
