TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1024
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder of Tenancy Right in the Assessment year 2010-11. 2 The Learned Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals) 32 ought to have allowed exemption Under Section 54 F of The Income Tax Act 1961. 3 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ) 32 failed to appreciate the fact that theFlat in Goa was gifted to his daughter in absolute ownership and possession he ought not to have considered the appellant as deemed owner by invoking Section 27 ( i ) of the Income Tax Act 1961 which decides deemed income under House Property. 4 The Learned Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals) 32 ought not to have accepted the additional evidence produce before him as it was relevant to decide date of transfer as in case of tenancy holding of property in posse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the claim of the assessee u/s 54F of the Act on the ground that the assessee was owner of two flats on the date of transfer of capital assets. AO took the view that assessee was owing two residential houses i.e. one at Holy Park CHS Ltd, Goa purchased in Dec 2003 and another at Panch Tantara-1, Versova, Andheri (west), Mumbai purchased in July, 1998. Therefore, in view of the above facts, the assessee was denied exemption u/s 54F of the Act. 6.1 It was submitted that in fact the residential flat situated at Goa was actually purchases jointly in the name of assessee as well as his wife. In this respect, Ld. AR drawn our attention to page no. 37 to 60 of the paper book, which is an agreement of Goa flat jointly purchased in the name of ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of another residential flat, exemption under section 54F could be denied - Held, no. Words and Phrases - 'Own' as occurring in section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and also the decision of Hon'ble Chennai Tribunal in the case of Mrs. V. R. Usha Vrs. ITO [2016]70 taxmann.com 340 (Chennai - Trib.)/[2016]159ITD 402 (Chennai -Trib), wherein it was held that Where ownership of assessee over property was subject to life interest retained by her mother in said property, it could not be said that assessee owned said property fully and it could not be a reason to deny exemption under section 54F claimed by assessee on sale of her another property. 6.4 Thus referring to the aforementioned judgments, Ld. AR argued that the assessee was no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....above decision of Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of Mrs. V. R. Usha Vrs. ITO [2016]70 taxmann.com 340 (Chennai - Trib.)/[2016]159ITD 402 (Chennai -Trib), wherein it was held that Where ownership of assessee over property was subject to life interest retained by her mother in said property, it could not be said that assessee owned said property fully and it could not be a reason to deny exemption under section 54F claimed by assessee on sale of her another property. 8.2 Therefore, as per the principles laid down above, the assessee cannot be said to be the full owner of the property and thus cannot be denied exemption u/s 54 of the Act as claimed by him. Even otherwise as per the decision of Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of ITO....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ential unit, none of the co-owners can claim that he is the owner of residential house. Ownership of a residential house, in our opinion, means ownership to the exclusion of all others. Therefore, where a house is jointly owned by two or more persons, none of them can be said to be the owner of that house. This view of ours is also fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Seth Banarsi Ds Gupta v. CIT 166 ITR 783, wherein it was held that a fractional ownership was not sufficient for claiming even fraction depreciation Under Section 32 of the Act. Because of this judgment, the legislature had to amend the provisions of Section 32 with effect from 1.4.1997 by using the expression "owned wholly or partly". So, ....