TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all these cases claimed deduction under s. 54F, inter alia, on the ground that sale proceeds of the long-term capital assets sold by them have partly been utilized for investment in residential house. The AO denied grant of said deduction under s. 54F on the ground that all these assessees were owners of 1/8th share or property No. 8/2286, Parsiwad, Gopipura, Surat, which they were using for their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t this contention and refused to grant deduction under s. 54F. 3. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Shri M.K. Patel, learned counsel appeared on behalf of all these assessee and brought to our notice a decision of Tribunal, Bombay "E" Bench in the case of Smt. Kalwanti D. Alerja vs. ITO (1996) 54 TTJ (Bom) 593 in which it was held that in order to exclude exemption under s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erted in the statute with an intent to provide incentive to the house building activity. In a welfare state it is necessary to see that citizens get proper shelter. To facilitate the task the section was enacted. It is a benevolent provision, therefore, should not be constructed too technically. Take an example, X constructs a house on a plot owned by him. First year he sells shares and constructs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the present cases are squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal. However, the Department would like to keep the matter alive. 6. Since the facts of all the present cases are identical with the facts of the case of Smt. Kalwanti D. Alreja vs. ITO, we respectfully Mowing the above referred order of the Tribunal, Bombay hold that the assessee will be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
