TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tax Court: Section 54F benefits for residential house investment, location not a bar</h1> <h3>LEENA JUGALKISHOR SHAH Versus ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.</h3> LEENA JUGALKISHOR SHAH Versus ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. - [2017] 392 ITR 18 Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to residential houses purchased outside India.2. Interpretation of the term 'residential house' in Section 54F before its amendment by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014.3. Legislative intent and the scope of judicial interpretation in tax statutes.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to Residential Houses Purchased Outside India:The primary issue revolves around whether the benefit under Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is available to an assessee who purchases or constructs a residential house outside India. The Tribunal and the lower authorities had denied the benefit, interpreting that the residential house must be situated in India. However, the court observed that at the relevant time, Section 54F did not explicitly restrict the location of the residential house to India. The amendment by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, which introduced the restriction, was effective from 1st April 2015 and thus not applicable to the assessment year in question.2. Interpretation of the Term 'Residential House' in Section 54F Before Its Amendment by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014:The court noted that the language of Section 54F before the amendment was clear and unambiguous, stating that the assessee should invest in a 'residential house' without specifying that it must be in India. The court emphasized that the statutory language should be interpreted as it is, without importing words that are not present. The court referenced the Explanatory Notes to the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, which clarified that the amendment to restrict the benefit to residential houses situated in India was prospective and applicable from the assessment year 2015-16 onwards.3. Legislative Intent and the Scope of Judicial Interpretation in Tax Statutes:The court highlighted principles of statutory interpretation, particularly in tax laws, where ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the assessee. The court cited precedents from the Supreme Court, including Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-I v. Vegetable Products Ltd. and Smt. Tarulata Shyam and others v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, to support the view that courts should not amend statutes by judicial interpretation but should interpret them as they are written. The court held that the Tribunal erred in interpreting Section 54F to include a restriction that was not present in the statutory language before the amendment.Conclusion:The court concluded that the benefit under Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961, before its amendment by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, was available for investment in a residential house irrespective of its location. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and answered the question of law in favor of the assessee and against the revenue. The judgment underscores the principle that statutory provisions should be interpreted based on their clear language, and any ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
