News Update

ISRO study reveals possibility of water ice in polar cratersBiden says migration has been good for US economyUS says NO to Rafah operation unless humanitarian plan is in place + Colombia snaps off ties with IsraelMay Day protests in Paris & Istanbul; hundreds arrestedSaudi fitness instructor jailed for social media post - Amnesty International seeks releaseDelhi HC orders DGCA to deregister GO First’s aircraftIndia successfully tests SMART anti-submarine missile-assisted torpedo systemKiller heatwave kills hundreds of thousands of fish in Southern VietnamHong Kong struck by close to 1000 lightningColumbia Univ campus turns into ‘American Gaza’ - Pro-Palestinian students & counter-protesters clashViksit Bharat @2047: Taxes form the BedrockGST - April month collections go past Rs 2 lakh crore threshold - peak to Rs 2.1 lakh croreCX - Alleged clandestine removal - Not replying to SCN on the ground that letter is not furnished by department is only a ruse as reliance is not placed on the same by the respondent authority for adjudicating the SCNs: SCGST - Proper officer observes that the reply filed is not satisfactory and since the assessee has nothing more to say, demand is confirmed - Officer has not applied his mind - Matter remitted: HCGST - Petitioner had no opportunity to even object to the retrospective cancellation of registration - Petitioner does not seek to continue his business and has sought cancellation of registration - Order modified accordingly: HCGST - Seizing the outward movement of funds from petitioner's bank account - Life of an order of provisional attachment u/s 83(2) is only one year - HDFC Bank, henceforth, cannot restrain operation of bank account: HCTax - on Death and ContemplationDelhi, Noida schools receive bomb threats; Children sent back homeI-T- Writ court is not required to interfere with assessment order, where assessee also has available option of statutory appeal: HCED seizes Rs 90 Cr stored in crypto in Gaming App scamI-T-Transfer of assessment is sustained, where assessee does not reply to any notice issued in this regard & where valid reasons exist for transferring assessment: HCHM appeals Naxalism will be erased in 2 yrs if Modi voted back to powerAmerica softens offence related to use of marijuanaI-T - Rule 11UA does not mentions pre-condition of approval of balance sheet by Annual General Meeting: ITATAfter US & UK India comes third in terms of 79 mn cyber attacks in 2023: StudyCBIC revises tariff value of gold, silver & edible oils
 
I-T - 'House property under construction', would not satisfy essential criteria of 'residential accomodation', for purpose of claiming deduction u/s 54F: ITAT

By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, AUG 11, 2017: THE ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS - Whether a 'house property under construction', would satisfy the criteria of 'residential accomodation', for purpose of claiming deduction u/s 54F. NO is the answer.

Facts of the case:

The Assessee was engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of ready-made garments for ladies and kids wear in the name of proprietary concern M/s. Chelsea Mills. During the year, the assessee sold 5 house properties and invested sale consideration received in construction of another property. The assessee thereafter filed return declaring total income of Rs.1,73,68,240/-, after claiming deduction u/s 54F for investment in residential house against the capital gain on sale of house properties. The AO however informed the assessee that deduction u/s 54F had already been allowed in A.Y 2009-10 amounting to Rs.47,84,000/- for investment made in construction of House at 9, Mehandi Farms, Bhatti Mines, New Delhi. He further noted that claim of deduction u/s 54F in A.Y 2010-11 was withdrawn during assessment proceeding. According to the AO, on the date of transfer of the original asset, the assessee owned more than one residential house and therefore it was not eligible for deduction u/s 54F. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the deduction amounting to Rs.1,59,77,680/- claimed by the assessee.

On appeal, the ITAT held that,

++ it is to be noted that in what circumstances the deduction was withdrawn by the assessee in the preceding year, is not relevant. What is relevant, is, whether the assessee satisfies the conditions of section 54F of the Act in the year under consideration. The DR could not controvert findings of the CIT-(A). In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 54F because house property at 9, Mehandi Farms was under construction during the year under consideration and it cannot be said as another residential house owned by the assessee. As the assessee owned only one residential house at D-3/8 Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 54F for investment in construction of the house property at 9, Mehandi Farms. In our considered opinion, the finding of the CIT-(A) on the issue in dispute is well reasoned and we find no error in the said finding.

(See 2017-TIOL-1128-ITAT-DEL)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri N K Singh, recipient of TIOL FISCAL HERITAGE AWARD 2023, delivering his acceptance speech at Fiscal Awards event held on April 6, 2024 at Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi.


Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.