TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 1087
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cing reliance on jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Late MirGulam Khan165 ITR 228(AP) without considering the fact that the same is not applicable to the present case. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing the exemption u/s 54 of the Act by placing reliance on jurisdiction ITAT decision in the case of ACIT Vs.N.Ram Kumar 138 ITD 317 Hyd without considering the fact that the ITAT relied upon the decision of CIT Vs. late Mir Gulam Ali Khan while disposing the case." 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a film producer who filed his return of income for the Asst. Year 2007-08 on 25-03-09 declaring a total income of Rs. 14,12,860/-. Survey operations were conducted in the premises of the assessee on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed on the reverse of Page 2 of the sale deed dated 10-11-2006 and arrived at the capital gains of Rs. l,87,54,873. 5.1 Subsequently, the assessee purchased a plot at Jubilee Hills on 20-06-2007 in the name of his wife Ms.B. Padmavathi for a total consideration of Rs. 2,74,79,025 within one year from the date of sale of property on 10-11-2006 and claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act. As the cost of the new property is more than the capital gains accrued to the assessee amounting to Rs. 1,82,76,239, the assessee was of the view that there would not be any capital gains as per the provisions of section 54F of the Act. However, the AO observed that the question arises is whether the exemption u/s 54F is applicable for the property purchased ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts of the case since in the case of CIT Vs Natarajan and CIT Vs Kamal Wahal, the High Courts have categorically held that exemption u/s 54F has to be allowed even if the assessee purchases the property in the name of his wife. The AP High Court in the case of Gulam Ali has held that the word 'assessee' must be given a wide and liberal interpretation so as to include his legal heirs also. Therefore, respectfully following the decisions of the above High Courts, as mentioned above, I hold that the appellant is eligible for exemption u/s 54F and direct the AO accordingly." 8. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before us. 9. Ld. DR submitted that the assessee has purchased the new asset in the name of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the new asset. In the given case, the assessee has invested whole of the net consideration in the new asset, hence, the assessee is allowed to get the benefit u/s 54F. Here the benefit is extended to the assessee not to the wife of the assessee. It is absolutely irrelevant to qualify the status of the wife of the assessee to extend the benefit u/s 54F. As discussed, the net consideration from the original asset is invested in the new asset is relevant, whether in his own name or in the name of his family member will qualify for the deduction u/s 54F. In our view, the new property registered in the name of assessee's wife is eligible to get deduction u/s 54F by relying on the decisions of CIT Vs. Natarajan and CIT Vs. Kamal Wahal (supra)....