TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1168
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....014, the assessing officer ('AO') states that on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department, Bangalore, it was learned that the assessee had executed a Joint Development Agreement ('JDA') dated 14.12.2005 with a builder / developer M/s. Chamundi Builders in respect of his property bearing No. 42/2, CMC Old Khatta No. 549/4, new Khatta No. 4278, New Property No. 42/2- 3, Arakere Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk Bangalore, measuring 3200 square feet for being developed into residential apartments by the builder. As per the terms of the JDA, the assessee received refundable deposit of Rs. 6 lakhs and in consideration of the assessee agreeing to transfer the undivided share of 60% in the af....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....exemption u/s 54F of the Act to the extent of Rs. 13,60,280/- in respect of 1 residential unit as against the assessee's claim for being allowed exemption u/s 54F in respect of all three residential units received as per the terms of the JDA. 3. The assessee, being aggrieved by the order of CIT(A)-4, Bangalore dated 28.08.2016 for Assessment Year 2006-07, has filed this appeal before the Tribunal, wherein he has raised the following grounds: 1. The orders of the authorities below in so far as they are against the appellant, are opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The order of re-assessment is bad in law and void-ab-initio for want of requisite jurisdiction especially, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eing general in nature, no adjudication is called for thereon and they are accordingly dismissed as infructuous. 5. Ground Nos. 2 and 3 (supra) are in respect of the challenging the validity of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 148 of the Act and computation of LTCG at Rs. 20,37,333/- respectively. At the outset of the hearing, the learned AR for the assessee submitted that these two grounds (supra) are not being pressed by the assessee in this appeal. In these circumstances, ground Nos. 2 and 3 of the assessee's appeal are rendered infructuous and accordingly dismissed as not pressed. 6. Ground No. 5 - Charging of interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act 6.1 In this ground (supra), the assessee denies himself liable to be charged interest u/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ictional High Court (supra) and allowed the assessee the benefit of exemption u/s 54F of the Act for all the 3 units instead of restricting the exemption to one flat only. It is the learned AR's contention that in the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court (supra), the Hon'ble Court has held that the meaning of "a residential House" in Section 54 of the Act meant that the assessee is entitled to exemption in respect of multiple units in the same residential building. In view of the above, it is submitted by the learned AR that the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. K. G. Rukminiamma (2011) 331 ITR 211 squarely applies on all fours to the assessee in the case on hand on facts and in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial units received by the assessee in lieu of entering into a JDA on 14.12.2005 with the developer M/s. Chamundi Builders. After taking into account the factual and legal matrix of the case on hand, in my considered view, the issue before me i.e., the assessee's claim for exemption u/s 54/54F of the Act in respect of 3 flats in the same Apartment building, is covered in favour of the assessee, both on facts and in law, by the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. K. G. Rukminiamma (2011) 331 ITR 211 (Karn). 7.3.2 I also find that a decision of ITAT, Bangalore in the case of Ms. Saritha Anand Shetty Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 1886/Bang/2018 dated 10.08.2018, on almost similar facts, has allowed the assessee's cla....