1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Tribunal grants deductions and exemption for flats, rejects car parking addition</h1> The Tribunal allowed deductions for the cost of the superstructure and granted pro rata exemption under sections 54/54F for the two flats occupied by the ... Capital gains, Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of the cost of superstructure.2. Denial of exemption u/s 54/54F.3. Addition of Rs. 90,000 on account of car parking.Summary:Disallowance of the Cost of Superstructure:The revenue contended that since the superstructure was to be demolished by the promoter, only the land was transferred, and the cost of the house could not be deducted. The assessee argued that both the land and the house were transferred, and the cost of the house should be allowed as a deduction. The Tribunal held that the superstructure was indeed transferred along with the land, and the cost of construction (Rs. 28,724) should be allowed as a deduction while computing capital gains.Denial of Exemption u/s 54/54F:The assessee initially claimed exemption u/s 54 but later sought exemption u/s 54F during assessment proceedings. The Tribunal revived the claim for exemption u/s 54, noting that the transfer included the house property. Citing various case laws, the Tribunal concluded that multiple self-contained dwelling units could be considered as one house if used as a single residence. However, since the assessee let out two of the four flats acquired, pro rata exemption was granted only for the two flats occupied by the assessee.Addition of Rs. 90,000 on Car Parking:The agreement specified that the assessee had no proportionate right over the parking space. However, the Deed of Completion indicated that three parking spaces were allotted to the assessee without extra charge, implying that the cost was included in the total construction cost. The Tribunal inferred that the total sale consideration already included the cost of parking space, and thus, a separate addition of Rs. 90,000 was not justified and was deleted.Conclusion:The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, with the Tribunal granting deductions for the cost of the superstructure, pro rata exemption u/s 54 for the two flats occupied by the assessee, and deleting the addition for car parking.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
