2018 (5) TMI 1014

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e as under: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in granting benefit of deduction u/s. 54 even though the major amount was invested 3 years prior to present sale and purchase agreement was also registered at that time and thus the condition of prior purchase within one year of sale was not fulfilled. 2. The appellant prays that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the above ground(s) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 3. The appellant prays that the appeal is maintainable in this case in view of Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 of the C.B.D.T. 4. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2011. Therefore the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 54 of the Act. The claim/contentions of the assessee did not find favour with the AO and he rejected the claim of the assessee disallowing the exemption claimed under section 54 of the Act. 5. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee after considering the submissions and contentions of the assessee by observing and holding as under: "I have gone through the facts of the case. The appel lant has sold a residential proper ty dur ing the present f inancial year . Meanwhi le the appel lant had invested in residential property at Marvel Bharucha Realtors in the financial year 2008-09. The said property which is purchased has been....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ile definitely the taxpayer has completed the part performance of the contract in terms of the definitions of transfer specified in section 2 (47) and the transfer of proper ty act however i t cannot be said that the act of actual taking over of the said new proper ty is immater ial when i t comes to the appl icabi l i ty of the provisions of section 54. As can be seen in the present case while the property which has been purchased started being constructed in 2008 however the possession of the same has come to the taxpayer only in 2011. Therefore I am in agreement with the grounds filed by the taxpayer that he should be allowed to claim the exemption under section 54. The appeal is accordingly allowed. 6. The Ld. D.R. vehemently submitt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... A.R. submitted that since the assessee has taken the possession of the property after completion of property i.e. 13.12.2011 and the sale of property was 12.03.2012, therefore, the same is within one year prior to the date of sale and therefore the assessee is clearly entitled for exemption under section 54 of the Act. The assessee in defense of his argument relied on the following decisions: 1. CIT vs. Smt. Beena K. Jain [1996] 217 ITR 363 (Bom) 2. Bastimal K. Jain vs. ITO in ITA No.2896/M/2014 for A.Y. 2010-11 order dated 08.06.2016 3. V.M. Dujodwala vs. ITO 1991 36 ITD 130 Mum The Ld. A.R. finally submitted that in view of the ratio laid down by the jurisdictional High Court and the co-ordinate benches of t....