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>Joint ownership of multiple residential properties doesn't disqualify section 54F deduction for long-term capital gains</h1> <h3>Shweta Singh Versus Income Tax Officer Ward–33 (3) (2), Mumbai</h3> Shweta Singh Versus Income Tax Officer Ward–33 (3) (2), Mumbai - TMI Issues Involved:1. Condonation of Delay2. Legality and Jurisdiction of the Order3. Principles of Natural Justice4. Disallowance of Deduction u/s 54FSummary:Condonation of Delay:The appeal was delayed by 135 days. The assessee claimed that the impugned order was neither received via registered email nor physically delivered. The delay was attributed to the lack of real-time alerts and the discovery of the order only upon a random check on the e-filing portal. The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay within the parameters for condonation laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. MST Katiji and others: 1987 SCR (2) 387, and condoned the delay.Legality and Jurisdiction of the Order:The assessee contended that the appellate order by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, was bad, illegal, and without jurisdiction. It was argued that the order was framed in breach of statutory provisions and was perverse, passed without proper application of mind to the facts on record.Principles of Natural Justice:The assessee argued that the CIT(A) failed to grant a proper, sufficient, and adequate opportunity of being heard, thus breaching the principles of natural justice. The order was claimed to be passed without considering the facts and submissions brought on record and without providing an opportunity for a personal hearing.Disallowance of Deduction u/s 54F:The primary issue pertained to the disallowance of Rs. 61,65,546/- u/s 54F. The assessee sold agricultural land and deposited the capital gains in a capital gain account scheme, claiming a deduction for investment in a new residential flat. The AO disallowed the deduction, citing that the assessee was a joint owner of more than one residential house at the time of the sale of the original asset. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance.The Tribunal considered the submissions and found that joint ownership of more than one residential house does not disentitle the assessee from claiming deduction u/s 54F. The Tribunal referenced the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Dr. Smt. P.K. Vasanthi Rangarajan v/s CIT, [2012] 23 taxmann.com 299 (Mad.), which held that joint ownership does not constitute ownership of a residential house for the purposes of section 54F. The Tribunal also noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court's dismissal of the SLP in M.J. Siwani v/s CIT did not constitute a binding judgment. Thus, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for deduction u/s 54F.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the deduction u/s 54F and leaving other grounds open in light of the relief granted.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
