TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 998
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is void ab initio deserves to be quashed. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) has erred in adopting the cost of acquisition of Rs. 2,12,250/- by disallowing the amount of Rs. 4,04,737/-. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) has erred in not giving the benefit of Rs. 7,25,630/- U/s 54 claimed by the assessee regarding second house purchase. 4. The assessee craves your indulgence to add amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing." 2. The grounds No. 1 and 2 of the appeal were not pressed at the time of hearing, therefore, the same stands dismissed as not pressed. 3. Ground No. 4 is general in nature and does not require any adjudication, there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Rs. 1,51,030 versus amount of Rs. 1,30,720 mentioned by the AO since registration charges of Rs. 20,110 and copying charges of Rs. 200 have not been considered by the AO in the Remand Report. Accordingly, the AO is directed to grant further deduction of Rs. 1,51,030 u/s 54 in respect of this amount. 6.4 Regarding further contention of the assessee claiming further deduction of Rs. 7,25,630 in respect of the second house purchased, it is observed that the claim of exemption u/s 54 is allowable only in respect of one new house property purchased. This was the legislative intent even before the specific amendment introduced in section 54 with effect from 01-04-2015. This view is supported by the decisions in the cases of Pawan Arya vs CIT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Ananda Basappa (supra) has entitled the assessee to exemption u/s 54 in respect of two residential houses, however it is also equally true that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of K.C. Kaushik (supra) and the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Pawan Arya (supra) have held the assessee to be entitled to exemption u/s 54 only in respect of one residential house. The learned AR strongly argued that the judgment in the case of Karnataka High Court be followed in preference to that of the special bench of the Tribunal and other High Courts as noted above. A feeble unsuccessful attempt was made to distinguish the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the aforenoted case. In our considered opinion ....