Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2014 (1) TMI 298

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he section 54F(i) has stated that the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long term capital asset, not being a residential house. 3. That the ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by observing that in section 54F(i), the capital gain must arise from the transfer of any long term capital asset, except residential property." 3. At the time of hearing before us, it was submitted by the learned DR that the Assessing Officer rightly denied exemption under Section 54F(i) to the assessee on two grounds - (i) the assessee had sold the residential house and Section 54F(i) is applicable for the capital asset except residential house, and (ii) that on the date of the transfer, the assessee was owning more than one residential house. That ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ption under Section 54F on two grounds - (i) the asset sold by the assessee was a residential house and, (ii) on the date of transfer, the assessee owned more than one residential house. This finding of the Assessing Officer was based on his inference that the assessee's property at Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place was a residential house. Learned CIT(A), considering both the aspects and after examining the facts of the case, arrived at the following conclusion :- "11. I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant, the observations made by the A.O. in the assessment order and the facts of the case. The only issue involved in this appeal is whether exemption u/s 54F was available to the appellant or not in respect of the LTCG....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct on this ground. 12. As far as the second observation of the A.O. for denying exemption to the appellant u/s 54F is concerned i.e. the appellant had more than one residential house property on the date of transfer of the original asset, it seen that property No.805, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi has been given on lease by the appellant to M/s Privy Consulting Pvt.Ltd. who are using the same for business and commercial purposes. The appellant is also charging service tax on the rent received from this company and depositing the same to the Government's account. The property is situated in a commercial district of Delhi i.e. Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi and is being used for business/commercial purposes as can be seen from the ....