2018 (3) TMI 1791

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2. Assessee's Appeal: The assessee has raised two grounds in his appeal however the crux of the issue is that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in restricting the claim of deduction U/s.54F of the Act from Rs. 3,38,76,455/- to Rs. 2,10,76,603/- by excluding the portion of the residential building which was used for business purpose. 3. Revenue's Appeal: The Revenue has raised several grounds in its appeal however the crux of the issue is that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in granting exemption U/s.54F of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual earning income from business as partner in M/s. Saravana Cloth Store and also engaged in share trading business, filed his return of income for the assessment year 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e value of the building constructed. He further relied in the decision of various judicial authorities cited herein below:- (1) Mahavir Prasad Gupta V. JCIT in [2006] 5 SOT 353 (Delhi) - Delhi Tribunal (2) Amit Gupta V. DCIT in [2006] 6 SOT 403 (Delhi) (3) Shyamala Tandon V. Income Tax Officer in [2014] 43 taxmann.com 155 (Hyderabad - Trib.) (4) K. Pratibha V. ITO in [2014] 45 taxmann.com 282 (Hyderabad - Trib.) (5) N. Revathi V. ITO in [2014] 45 taxmann.com 30 (Hyderabad - Trib.) He therefore pleaded that the addition made by the Ld.AO by denying the benefit of deduction U/s. 54F of the Act may be deleted. The Ld.DR on the other hand vehemently argued in support of the order of the Ld.AO and prayed for sustaining the same.....