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>Section 54 deduction allowed for residential property purchased in spouse's name, following purposive construction over literal interpretation</h1> <h3>Simran Bagga, C/o CA Anshul Kumar/ CA Satish Kumar Lalit Vanjani & Co., CA Versus ACIT, Circle-1 (1) (2), International Taxation, New Delhi</h3> Simran Bagga, C/o CA Anshul Kumar/ CA Satish Kumar Lalit Vanjani & Co., CA Versus ACIT, Circle-1 (1) (2), International Taxation, New Delhi - TMI Issues: The judgment involves the following issues: 1. Allowability of deduction u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when the property is registered in the name of the spouse of the assessee. 2. Validity of penalty proceedings u/s 270A(9)(a) for underreporting of income due to misreporting of income.Issue 1: Allowability of Deduction u/s 54: The appeal was filed against an order disallowing deduction u/s 54 of the Act amounting to INR 93,46,404, as the residential property was registered in the name of the spouse of the assessee. The assessee had sold a property in New Delhi and reinvested the proceeds in a new residential house in Hyderabad, registered in the name of her spouse. The ITAT considered various precedents where deductions were allowed for properties registered in the name of spouses or jointly with spouses. The ITAT held that since the sale proceeds were reinvested in the new property within the allowed time, the assessee was eligible for the deduction u/s 54.Issue 2: Validity of Penalty Proceedings: The AO proposed penalty proceedings u/s 270A(9)(a) for underreporting of income due to misreporting, without providing reasons for satisfaction on what facts were misrepresented or suppressed. The ITAT did not find any merit in the penalty proceedings as the assessee had furnished all details of the investment in the new property and the deduction claimed. The ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee, emphasizing that the provisions of section 54F/54 should be interpreted liberally in favor of the taxpayer, and deductions should not be denied.Conclusion: The ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee, ruling in favor of the assessee on the issue of deduction u/s 54 and dismissing the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 270A(9)(a) for underreporting of income due to misreporting. The judgment highlighted the importance of interpreting beneficial provisions liberally in favor of taxpayers and ensuring that deductions are not unjustly denied.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
