AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 1645
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jection are inter-connected, hence, the same are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience, by first dealing with Revenue's Appeal. 2. The grounds raised in the Revenue's Appeal read as under:- 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,16,88,825/- made by the AO. 2. (a) The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. (b) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any / all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal. 3. The grounds raised in the Assessee's Cross Objection read as under:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of Rs. 1,16,88,825/- on accou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The case of the assessee was centralized with the Central Circle-10, New Delhi vide order uls 127 dated 31.3.2013 now restructured as Central Circle-19, New Delhi. The assessee filed his return of income on 27.07.2012 declaring a total income of Rs. 2,71,44,880/-. Thereafter, notices uls 143(2), 142(1) of the Act and a detailed questionnaire were issued and served upon the appellant. In response to the same, the ARs of the assessee attended the assessment proceedings and filed necessary details, information and documents called from time to time, which were considered by the Assessing Officer. Thereafter, the assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 25.03.2014 at a total income of Rs. 3,89,41,516/- by making the addition of R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant for claiming deduction u/s 54F. We note that the dispute by the Assessing Officer is that the assessee is not entitled to claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act because as on the date of sale of long term capital asset, the assessee was owning more than two immovable properties. We have gone through the provisions of section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per which deduction u/s 54F is not allowable if (1) Owns more than one residential House, other the new assets on the date of transfer of the original Asset and 2) The income from such residential house, other than one residential house owned on the date of transfer of the original assets, is chargeable under the head of Income from house Property". After perusal of aforesaid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CIT(A) in his impgend order has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shree Nirmal Commercial Ltd v CIT (1992) 60 taxman 324 (Bom) wherein, it was held that it was necessary to be charged u/s 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 that it should be capable of being let out. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that AO has erred in denying the deduction in the section 54F of the Act. The restriction imposed by section 54F as mentioned above disentitling the claim of deduction u/s 54F not only requires that the assessee owns more than one residential house but it also requires that income from such residential house is chargeable to tax under the head income from house property. In the assessee's....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i.e. 9, Mehandi Farms, Bhati Mines, New Delhi was under construction and cannot be said residential house owned by the assessee. 4. There is no bar in the section 54F of the Act for claiming 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. 10. 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.....