TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (6) TMI 607
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct the appellant had not submitted any inaccurate particulars. 2. During the assessment year, the assessee has sold its factory premises from which it has been showing rental income. In the computation of total income the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54F of Rs. 1,34,95,220/- on the investment in three flats. The AO asked the assessee to explain as to how it can claim deduction u/s 54F on three different units on the same floor and in the name of three different persons, as it is contrary to the provisions of section 54F. In response the assessee filed revised return of income and restricted its claim u/s 54F only to one flat. Consequently the assessee withdrew its claim in respect of other two flats which were jointly purchased in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g which comprised one residential unit. He has further submitted that one flat was purchased in the name of assessee and the other two flats were purchased in the joint name of the assessee and his wife and son respectively. The entire investment for purchase of these flats have been made from the sale proceeds of the asset sold by the assessee. Thus the Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that exemption u/s 54F is allowable when a new hosue is purchased in the joint name of the assessee and his wife as well as assessee and his son. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decisioin of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kamal Wahal (2013) 258 CTR 251 (Del). He has also relied upon the following decisions. (i) DIT (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase of assssee is not warranted. In support of his contention he has relied upon following decisions:- (i) CIT Vs Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd.. (2010) 230 CTR (SC) 320 (ii) DIT(IT)-1 Vs. Administrator of the Estate of Late Mr. F.E. Dinshaw (iii) Sri Venkatesh Murthy Vs. CIT [ITA No. 720/2007/C/W ITA No. 719/2007] (iv) Price Waterhosue Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2012) 253 CTR 1(SC) 7. On the other hand the Ld. DR has submitted that it is not a voluntary admission of income by withdrawal of exemption u/s 54F but the assessee has revised its income only when the AO detected the wrong claim made by the assessee u/s 54F. The Ld. DR has further contended that once the assessee has withdrawn the claim u/s 54F by considering the same as wro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ential unit. Further the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ananda Basappa (supra) has held that the expression 'a residential house' used in section 54 makes it clear that it was not the intention of the legislation to convey the meaning that it refers to a single residential house. After analyzing the provisions of section 54, the Hon'ble High Court has held that the said expression 'a residential house' should be read in consonance with other words 'buildings and lands' and, therefore, the singular also permits the use of plural. This view was reiterated in the case of Cit Vs. Smt. K.G. Rukminiamma (supra), wherein it was held that four residential flats constitute a residential house for the purpose of section 54. Thus ....