TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (2) TMI 960
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e BHDB scheme for Rs.1,31,401/-. This flat was sold for Rs.16,00,000/- on 16.12.2003. The cost of index was claimed to be at Rs.4,83,556/-. The cost of improvement was indexed at Rs.2,01,048/-. Thus the assessee had claimed cost of index and improvement at Rs.7,05,199/-. Thus gross capital gain was worked out at Rs.8,94,801/-(16,00,000 - 7,05,199). As against this, expenditure of Rs.97,000/- was also claimed on account of Architect fee, brokerage, society charges and professional fee. Thus net capital gain was worked out at Rs.7,97,801/- (Rs.8,94,801 - Rs.97,000). The assessee further claimed that it purchased a house at 667 Atwater Avenue, Montreal, Quebec H3Y2L9 Canada for Indian Rs.64,75,000/-. The assessee has also filed proof tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fficer calculated long term capital gain as under: Sale Value as per section 50C(3) of the Act. Rs.21,11,560 Less: (i) Purchase price - indexed at Rs.4,86,709 (ii) Cost of Improvement indexed at Rs.2,01,048 (146308 + 53740) -------------- Rs. 6,87,757 --------------- Rs.14,23,803 Less: Allowable expenses. Architect fee Rs.15,000 Brokerage Rs.32,000 Society Charges Rs.25,000 Professional fee Rs.-Not allowed. (Rs.25,000 not allowed) ------------- Rs. 72,000 --------------- Net Capital Gain Rs.13,51,803 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dia, same are required to be read accordingly. Thus, section 54F is also required to be read accordingly. The word purchase/construction of a residential on plain and simple reading means that the purchase/construction of a residential/house must be in India and not outside India." In the light of settled rulings of interpretation of tax statutes, a residential house purchased/constructed must be in India and not outside India. This interpretation is strongly supported by the marginal note section 54 inserted by the Finance Act, 1982 w.e.f. 01.04.1983." The Assessing Officer also referred the comment of legal experts as reported in 263 ITR 119/Articles, on the above decision of Mumbai Tribunal and came to the conclusion that when non-reside....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o follow ratio laid down by the Jurisdictional Tribunal as held in Om Prakash Trivedi vs. Union of India and Another (2006) 287 ITR 11 (All.) relied on the decision of the Jurisdictional Tribunal in Mrs. Prema P. Shah vs. ITO(2006) 282 ITR (AT) 211(Mum.) wherein it has been interalia held " that sec.54 did not exclude the right of the assessee to claim the benefits of the section in relation to property purchased in a foreign country, if all other conditions laid down in the section were satisfied, merely because the property acquired was in a foreign country", directed the AO to allow deduction u/s.54F of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A) the revenue is in appeal before us taking following effective gr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at since he has purchased a house in Canada for Indian Rs.64,75,000/- after repatriating the sale consideration under NOC dated 22.1.2004 he is eligible for deduction u/s.54 of the Act. It was denied by the Assessing Officer following the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in Leena J. Shah vs. ACIT in ITA No.2467(AHM) of 2000 dated 10.11.2005 wherein the assessee's claim of deduction u/s.54F was not allowed on the ground that the purchase/construction of residential house must be in India and not outside India. However on appeal, the ld. CIT(A) following the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in Mrs. Prema P. Shah (supra), has allowed the deduction u/s.54 of the Act. 8. In Mrs. Prema P. Shah and Sanjiv P. Shah v....