2011 (8) TMI 1208

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ri J.K. Reddy, CA represented on behalf of the assessee. 3. In the Revenue's appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds : "1.a On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in directing the A.O. to give deduction u/s 54F of ` 86,19,796/- by relying on the judgement of ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of ITO vs Rasiklal N. Satra 280ITRSP 243. 1.b. The learned CIT(A) has failed to note that there are a number of judgements to the effect that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 54F even when the assessee acquires partial right in residential property. 1.c The learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the ratio of the judgement of ITAT Delhi-G Bench in the case of ITO Mrs. Kamlesh Bansal vs. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assessee was the co-owner in two house properties and as the assessee held more than one residential house, the deduction u/s. 54F was not available to the assessee. It was the submission that the learned CIT(A) had held that the assessee was entitled to the deduction u/s 54F by holding that a joint owner of a house could not be held to be owning a residential house. It was the submission that on identical issue the ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of Dr. P.K. Vasanthi Rangarajan in ITA No. 1753/Mds/2004 dated 25-7-2005 had held that for the purpose of section 54F, owning part of the residential property, though not fully, amounts to owning a residential property as envisaged in section 54F. It was the submission that the learned CIT(A) had r....