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>Tribunal allows deduction under Section 54F for land and residential unit</h1> <h3>Girish Mohan Versus ACIT, Circle-1 (1), Gurgaon</h3> Girish Mohan Versus ACIT, Circle-1 (1), Gurgaon - TMI Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of cost of improvement.2. Disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 54F.3. Whether the constructed residential house qualifies for the deduction under Section 54F.Summary:Issue 1: Disallowance of Cost of ImprovementThe assessee contested the disallowance of Rs. 4 lakh as the cost of improvement on the property sold during FY 1996-97. The AO and CIT(A) disallowed the claim, citing unreliable documentary evidence. The CIT(A) noted that the bills and vouchers submitted lacked authenticity, including issues like sequential bill numbers despite different dates, absence of sales tax registration or PAN, and non-existent contact numbers at the time. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, agreeing with the AO and CIT(A) that the evidence provided was insufficient to substantiate the claim.Issue 2 and 3: Disallowance of Deduction under Section 54FThe assessee claimed a deduction under Section 54F for investing in a new residential house. The AO disallowed the claim, stating that the assessee only possessed a piece of land without any construction. The CIT(A) partially allowed the claim but restricted it to the constructed portion, not the entire land, and questioned the residential intent and the small size of the constructed portion relative to the land size.The Tribunal reviewed the evidence, including site plans, valuation reports, and change of land use (CLU) certificates, which indicated the construction of a residential unit. The Tribunal referred to various ITAT decisions, concluding that the non-residential use of a residential house does not disqualify it from Section 54F benefits. It also stated that the size of the constructed portion should not limit the exemption to the land appurtenant. The Tribunal ruled that the assessee met all conditions for the deduction under Section 54F and directed the AO to allow the deduction for the entire land and constructed portion.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the ground on the cost of improvement but allowed the grounds related to the Section 54F deduction, directing the AO to grant the deduction for the entire land and constructed residential unit. The appeal was partly allowed.
TaxTMI 