TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (4) TMI 173
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in allowing the benefits of section 54F even if the transfer is not evidenced by a registered deed ? 2. The assessee had sold his plot of land for Rs. 11,32,625 and claim exemption under section 54F of the Act in respect of purchase of residential flat at 7, Chetak Vihar, Race Course Road, Indore, on Rs. 3,50,000 and in addition to this exemption, Rs. 25,000 had also been claimed in respect of expected investments in the said flat within one year. 3. The assessee had enhanced this claim to Rs. 3,90,000. The Assessing Officer declined the claim on the basis that the title was not vested in the assessee because the flat was not registe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....out of the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. 6 On further reference to this court under section 256(2) of the Act, the Tribunal was directed to refer the said questions along with the statement of the case. It is in this background that the Tribunal has forwarded this reference for opinion of this Court on the questions stated hereinabove. 7 Learned counsel for the respondent-assessee has vehemently argued that at the time asset was acquired, the as did not possess any residential house and the Tribunal has observed that the assessee was in possession of residential house on the date of transfer of the asset to the assessee and allowance under section 54F was rightly granted. He has further submitted that even if the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... asset is not less than the net consideration in respect of the original asset, the whole of such capital gain shall not be charged under section 45 : (b) if the cost of the new asset is less than the net consideration in respect of the original asset, so much of the capital gain as bears to the whole of the capital gain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be charged under section 45 : Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply where — (a) the assessee,— (i) owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset; or (ii) purchases any residential house, other than the new asset, within a perio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the view that if a person had already a residential house, he cannot be allowed exemption to the extent of amount spent on acquisition of a new asset. 11. In so far as question No. 2 is concerned, learned counsel for the ii respondent has relied on the decision of this court in Smt. Shashi Varma v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 106. In the said judgment, it was averred that the assessee sold her property at Jabalpur and realised capital gains of Rs. 31,980 out of which she invested a sum of Rs. 71,256 and purchased a house at Delhi. The exemption was claimed from the charge of tax on capital gains under section 54F of the Act. It was rejected by the Income-tax Officer as also by the Tribunal. This court observed that substantial investment was made....