AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 200
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t year 2008-09, dated 22.8.2012 (Annexure A-2) passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for brevity "the CIT(A)"] and dated 5.10.2010 (Annexure A-1) passed by respondent No.2. The following substantial questions of law have been claimed by the assessee:- (i) Whether in facts and circumstances of the present case, the Ld. Authorities have erred in disallowing 75% of the deduction u/s 24(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating that the appellant/assessee had solely re-paid the entire interest and principal since the date of borrowing? (ii) Whether in facts and circumstances of the present case, the Ld. Authorities below have erred in misinterpreting the provisions of Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act as t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was issued on 15.2.2010. The assessee claimed deduction of interest on housing loan of Rs. 6,86,971/- under Section 24(b) of the Act for the property bearing House No. 3557, Sector-69, Mohali. The Assessing Officer framed the assessment vide order dated 5.10.2010 (Annexure A-1) and made an addition of Rs. 5,15,228/- after allowing only 1/4th of the total interest payment out of Rs. 6,86,971/- under Section 24(b) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who vide order dated 22.8.2012 (Annexure A-2) dismissed the appeal. Still dissatisfied, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 16.6.2015 (Annexure A-3) dismissed the appeal which gave rise ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....b) of the Act to 25%. The relevant findings recorded by the CIT(A) read thus:- "2.3. I have considered the submissions of the Ld. Counsel. For the sake of ready reference, provisions of section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act are reproduced below:- "Where immovable property is transferred for consideration to two or more persons and such consideration is paid out of a fund belonging to them in common, they are, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, respectively entitled to interests in such property identical, as nearly as may be, with the interests to which they were respectively entitled in the fund; and, where such consideration is paid out of separate funds belonging to them respectively, they are, in the absence ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aken as jointly held by all the co-owners and interest claimed u/s 24(b) is also to be equally divided. The allowable interest to the appellant u/s 24(b) is also to be equally divided. The allowance interest to the appellant u/s 24(b) will accordingly be 25% of the entire interest and the Assessing Officer has rightly restricted it to 25%. The action of the Assessing Officer is upheld and the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 to 5 are dismissed." 5. The Tribunal had affirmed the aforesaid findings of the CIT (A) by observing that the plot in question was purchased by four persons and the housing loan had also been taken jointly by the said four persons, therefore, the allowable interest to the assessee was 25% of the entire interest. Further, it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rty in proportion to the shares of the consideration which they respectively advanced. The last requirement of section is that in the absence of evidence as to the interest in the funds to which they were respectively entitled or as to the shares which they respectively advanced, such persons shall be presumed to be equally interested for the property. In the case of Saiyed Abdullah v. Ahmad AIR 1929 All. 817, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held that 'in the absence of specification of the shares purchased by two persons in the sale deed, it must be held that both purchased equal shares.' In the instant case the plot was purchased by four persons and their shares were not specified in the sale deed. Even the housing loan had a....