Income Tax

Capital gain deduction u/s 54 for purchase of two flats on different floors allowed by ITAT

Capital gain deduction u/s 54 for purchase of two flats on different floors allowed as flats were one above the other and converted into a single residential duplex unit

The instant appeal was filed by the appellant assessee against he order of the CIT(A) in upholding the action of the Assessing officer making disallowance u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 9the Act) for two residential flats.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2382 (2018) 06 ITAT

The assessee had declared long term capital gains (LTCG) on sale of House Property and had claimed exemption u/s 54 of the Act for purchase of two flats.

The Assessing Officer observed that these two flats purchased by the assessee were located at different floors of the apartment and according to him they did not constitute a single unit entitling the assessee, benefit of exemption u/s 54 in respect of one residential housing.

Assessing Officer further noted that for the one flat, the assessee had not made the full payment.

The AO restricted the exemption u/s 54 in respect of the flat for which full payment had been made and placing reliance on the judgment of decision of Mumbai Tribunal, taxed the balance amount as long term capital gains.

Before the Tribunal the assessee submitted that Section 54 entitles him for a full deduction against the two flat purchased which were adjoining with each other as was evident from the flat numbers.

The Tribunal noted that the Mumbai Tribunal had held that where more than one unit purchased which are adjacent to each other and are converted into one house for the purpose of residence by having common passage, common kitchen etc., it would be a case of investment in one residential house.

It was observed that in the instant case the appellant had purchased two flats at different floors one above the other and made it one single residential duplex unit. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to exemption in respect of investment in both the flats.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

Prima facie satisfaction u/s 148 can not be a non-existing or incorrect information

The prima facie satisfaction u/s 148 cannot be stretched to a non-existing information or incorrect information - ITAT In a…

15 hours ago
  • SEBI

Mutual Funds to value physical Gold and Silver by using the polled spot prices

Mutual Funds to value physical Gold and Silver by using the polled spot prices published by the recognized stock exchanges…

1 day ago
  • bankruptcy

SC allows simultaneous CIRP proceedings against principal debtor & corporate guarantor

Supreme Court allows simultaneous CIRP proceedings against principal debtor and its corporate guarantor, declines to frame any guidelines In a…

1 day ago
  • Income Tax

Merely because sales were declared for only one month, same cannot be treated as bogus

Merely because assessee had declared sales for only one month, the same cannot be treated as bogus on the basis…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

ITAT deleted addition as method of accounting had been accepted in earlier years

ITAT deleted addition as the method of accounting had been accepted by the department in earlier years and the entire…

3 days ago
  • Benami

Orders passed under Benami Act cannot be challenged under IBC 2016 – SC

Orders passed under Benami Act cannot be challenged under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - SC In a recent judgment,…

4 days ago