TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 399
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he learned PCIT was not justified in holding that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act by the Assessing officer for A.Y. 2013-14 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, as the claim for deduction u/s54 of the Income tax Act was allowed by the AO after due enquiry and verification. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned PCIT was not justified in holding that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act by the Assessing officer for A.Y. 2013-14 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, as the claim for deduction u/s 54 of the Income tax Act is a legally valid claim in view of the decision of the Honorable ITAT, Mumbai in Ramita Mahendra Mehta -ITA No. 4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erty was executed on 22.07.2009. Payment for the same was made on various dates in 2009, 2011 and 2012 and, as stated by the assessee, possession of the new flat was taken only on 24.08.2012. As per the PCIT, whenever an agreement for purchase is signed and registered and substantial amount is also paid for the purchase, it can be said that purchase has been effected. In the present case, the agreement for purchase was signed in July 2009, after payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- by the assessee. Thereafter, a further sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- was paid by 10.08.2011 viz. before one year from the date of sale of the original asset. The PCIT observed that when, out of a total amount of Rs. 90,00,000/- an amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- was invested in the new ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2012. The sale of the property resulted in capital gains of Rs. 45,42,485/-, after claiming the indexed cost of acquisition of the property. The residential house at Virar was sold for Rs. 14,00,000/- vide agreement dated 26.12.2012. The sale of the property resulted in capital gains of Rs. 5,68,875/-, after claiming the indexed cost of acquisition of the property. Thus the total capital gains on the sale of the aforesaid two properties came to Rs. 51,11,360/-. The Ld. counsel submits that the assessee purchased the under-construction residential flat at Kamla Park View, Flat No. 501, 5th floor, Lallubhai Park, Andheri West, Mumbai-400058 from the builder Kamla Landmarc Properties Pvt. Ltd. The agreement for the flat was executedon 22.07.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... before the AO that since the assessee had made investment in residential flat of Rs. 60,00,000/-, the LTCG of Rs. 51,11,360/- is exempt u/s 54. Also it is stated that vide letter dated 08.02.2016 it is filed before the AO that in case of purchase of house, the benefit is available in the investment in new house made by the assessee within the stipulated period u/s 54. It is thus submitted that the AO has allowed the claim of deduction u/s 54 after due verification and examination. Reliance is placed by him on the decision in CIT v. Smt. Beena K. Jain (1996) 217 ITR 363 (Bom), Smt. Ramita Mahendra Mehta v. ITO (ITA No. 4535/Mum/2014 for AY 2010-11) of ITAT 'D' Bench, Mumbai, Bastimal K. Jain v. ITO (ITA No. 2896/Mum/2014 for AY 2010-11) of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f a residential flat which agreement was dated 4th September 1985. The agreement was for purchase of a flat for a total consideration of Rs. 12,26,751/-. On the date of the agreement of sale, the assessee paid a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- as earnest money. This agreement was registered on 27th October 1985. The construction of the flat was finally completed in July, 1988. The assessee paid the consideration amount of Rs. 10,44,375/- plus Rs. 47,376/- on 29th July, 1988, and she was put in possession of the said flat on 30th July, 1988. The assessee claimed the benefit of exemption under section 54F of the Act. The Tribunal allowed her exemption on Rs. 11,04,423/- u/s 54F of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court agreed with the order of the ITAT and he....