TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee was eligible for claiming deduction under section 54F. The provisions of section 54F are pari-materia with the provisions of section 54 of the Act and thus, the principle derived equally applies to section 54 as well. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has also held in the various judgments that Purposive construction is to be preferred as against the literal construction, more so when even literal construction also does not say that the house should be purchased in the name of the assessee only. Section 54F/54 of the Act are the beneficial provisions which should be interpreted liberally in favour of the exemption/deduction to the taxpayer and deduction should not be denied. Since, the sale proceeds have been duly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or under reporting of income in consequence to misreporting of income for 'misrepresentation or suppression of facts', without assigning any reason or providing reasons for satisfaction as to what facts have been misrepresented or supressed by the Appellant in the present case. 3. Simran Bagga, is a non-resident individual residing in United Arab Emirates. For A.Y. 2020-21, the Assessee filed a revised return of income on 4 March 2021, wherein the total income of Rs. 2,11,190/- was declared after claiming deduction of Rs. 93,46,404/- u/s 54 of the Act. The assessment u/s 143(2) of the Act was initiated and queries were raised regarding the claim of deduction u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The undisputed facts of rega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Gains have been fully invested in acquisition of the property which is not in dispute. The only dispute is that the property has been registered in the name of the spouse of the assessee as the Assessee was in UAE at the time of registry whereas Mr. Ajay Suri, spouse of the Assessee was in India. The registry of the plot for the new property was completed on 12th January 2021, when strict international travel restrictions were in place due to Covid 19. Therefore, the Assessee could not travel to India and the registry was completed in the name of Mr. Ajay Suri. A construction agreement was also entered simultaneously with Jayabheri Properties Pvt. Ltd. whereby the construction of the house has also been completed. 8. The ld. DR argued th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Courts and the Tribunal which are as under: a) CIT vs. Natarajan, [2006] 287 ITR 271 (Madras HC) - The deduction under section 54 was allowed where the new residential property was purchased in the name of the wife of the assessee. b) DIT vs. Mrs. Jennifer Bhide [2011] 15 taxmann.com 82 (Kar HC) The Tribunal has allowed exemption u/s 54 for investment in residential property by the assessee jointly with her husband. c) Kamlesh Keswani vs. ACIT W.P.(C) 13713/2022, CM APPL. 41874/2022 CM APPL. 41875/2022 (Delhi HC) - Followed the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora, [2011] 15 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi) d) CIT vs. Sh. Mahadev Balai, ITA 136/2017 (Raj HC) - The Hon'ble High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purchased in the name of the spouse of the assessee was eligible for claiming deduction under section 54F. The provisions of section 54F are pari-materia with the provisions of section 54 of the Act and thus, the principle derived equally applies to section 54 as well. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has also held in the various judgments that Purposive construction is to be preferred as against the literal construction, more so when even literal construction also does not say that the house should be purchased in the name of the assessee only. Section 54F/54 of the Act are the beneficial provisions which should be interpreted liberally in favour of the exemption/deduction to the taxpayer and deduction should not be denied. 14. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
