Income Tax

Deduction u/s 54F for house purchased from father in law allowed

Deduction u/s 54F for house purchased from father in law allowed when he was assessed to long term capital gain with reference to sold house

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2971 (2019) (05) ITAT

Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties:

In this appeal, the assessee had challenged the order of the CIT(A) in upholding the action of Assessing Officer (AO) in not allowing the claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in respect of house property purchased from father in law.

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). However, the appeal of assessee was dismissed.

The Tribunal observed that in the case of the father in law (seller) the department had issued notice uls 148 on the basis of information that he had sold house to the assessee.

The Tribunal further noted that in the assessment order of the said father in law passed u/s 143(3)/147 a finding was given that possession was handed over to the buyer and the transaction relating to the sale of immovable property stood completed Accordingly, on sale of the house, the father in law was assessed at long term capital gain. Against this order the father in law had preferred an appeal before ITAT who allowed the indexed cost of acquisition. The order had become final.

Thus, the Tribunal opined that when the seller was assessed to long term capital gain with reference to the sale of his property, claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 54F in respect of the same house property could not be denied to assessee.

Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow assessee’s claim of deduction U/s 54F of the Act.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

Discontinuance of business of firm will not vest ownership of firm’s property with partners

Discontinuance of business of partnership firm will not result in vesting ownership of firm's property with individual partners for capital…

19 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Release of seized jewellery/gold u/s 132B within 120 days is directory not mandatory

Stipulation of 120 days for release of seized jewellery/gold u/s 132B is directory not mandatory – Delhi High Court In…

20 hours ago
  • ICAI

ICAI issues FAQs on key accounting implications arising from New Labour Codes

FAQs on key accounting implications arising from the New Labour Codes Recently, Government consolidated existing labour laws into four new…

1 day ago
  • Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80-IA(7) not allowed for delayed filing of audit report in Form 10CCB

Filing audit report in Form 10CCB within due date is mandatory. The assessee cannot claim deduction u/s 80-IA(7) he ground…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Is CSR expenditure is allowable under section 80G of Income Tax Act – ITAT says “Yes”

CSR expenditure of companies is allowable under section 80G unless fall under the two exceptions specified. In a recent judgment,…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Territorial jurisdiction of ITAT is determined on the basis of situs of Assessing Officer

Jurisdiction of ITAT is determined not by the place of business or residence of assessee but by the location of…

2 days ago