TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 480
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1,59,77,680/- u/s 54F of the I.T. Act. 2. Ignoring the fact that the assessee after expanding more than Rs. 1 crores in previous years unable to make the "Mehendi Farm" to habitual condition. 3. Ignoring the fact that the assessee accepted the disallowance of Rs. 86,00,000/- u/s 54F of the Act for the AY 2010-11. 4. Deleting the addition of Rs. 50,000 made on account of business promotion ignoring the personal element. 5. Deleting the addition of Rs. 1,20,000/- made on account of vehicle running expenses and ignore the personal element. 6. The appellant craves the right to add, alter or amend any ground appeal." 2. The facts in brief of the case are that the assessee was engaged in the business of manufacturing and export o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i Mines, New Delhi as under: S. No. Description of property Sale consideration Long Term Capital Gain after indexed value Remarks 1 Commercial Shop No. GF-17, Sector-43, Gurgaon (Peach tree), Rs. 43,37,280/- Rs. 5,97,212 /- Claimed U/s 54F 2 Plot No. 403, Block A-1, Sushant Lok-I, Gurgaon Rs.1,00,00,000/- Rs. 73,13,294/- --do-- 3 Plot No. A-1/404, Sushant Lok-ll, Gurgaon Rs.1,10,44,000/- Rs.81,03,976/- --do-- 4 Plot No. 209, Sector-32, Ambala Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rs.39,802/-) --do-- 5 (A) A-201, Kirti Nagar Industrial Area, New Delhi Rs.1,17,27,200/- Rs. 81,50,632/- Tax paid on gain (B) Building on above Rs. 47,22,800/- Rs. 44,95,088/- Adjusted against block of assets of building 6. As regarding claim of de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was not using that house as his residence during the relevant assessment year. At the same time, the construction of residential house at 9, Mehendi Farms, Bhati Mines, Chhatarpur New Delhi was also not complete and the appellant was residing during the relevant period in a residential property in the name of Hindu undivided family at E-222,Naraina Vihar, New Delhi. This fact is also evident from the documents such as telephone bill, copy of passports and copy of correspondences with IFCI. The appellant shifted to his residential house at 9, Mehendi Farms, Bhati Mines, Chhatarpur, New Delhi at 21.7.2010 which is evident from the completion certificate as well as the other evidences such as copies of Passports, identity cards issued by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t case, total capital gain arisen to the appellant in all the three years 2009-10 to 2011-12 was less than the cost of construction of the residential property at 9, Mehendi Farms, Bhati Mines, Chhatarpur, New Delhi. On these facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant is eligible for the deduction u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act and the AO is directed to impugned addition of Rs. 1,59,77,680/-. 8. Before us the Ld. Senior DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the assessee had already availed deduction under section 54F of the Act for investment in construction of the property at Mehandi Farms and which constituted another residential property and therefore, the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aiming deduction for second time or third time for the same property, if the cost of the property is within the capital gain arose to the assessee. 11. The Ld. Sr. DR contended that assessee has accepted the disallowance of Rs. 86,00,000/- under section 54F of the Act for assessment year 2010-11 and therefore the deduction in the year under consideration should also be disallowed. We are not convinced with this argument of the Ld. Senior DR as in what circumstances the deduction was withdrawn by the assessee in the preceding year, is not relevant for us. What is relevant is whether the assessee satisfies the conditions of section 54F of the Act in the year under consideration. Before us, the Ld. senior DR could not controvert findings of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e status of the assessee. The Ld. CIT-(A) deleted both the additions observing as under: "5.4 In the second ground of appeal, the appellant has challenged the disallowance of expenses on account of business promotion on estimate basis of Rs. 50,000/- and on account of vehicle maintenance on estimate basis at Rs. 1,20,000/-. It is noted that the Assessing Officer has made the aforesaid disallowance only on surmises and without bringing any evidence on record of the personal use of the business promotion expenses and the vehicle running and maintenance expenses. Not a single voucher of expense has been pointed out by the Assessing Officer to indicate that the business promotion expenses or the vehicles were used by the appellant for his per....