2019 (4) TMI 1956

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ncome Tax( Appeals)-12, Bengaluru is contrary to the law and facts of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax( Appeals)-12, Bengaluru ought to have considered the fact that in view of the Statutory provisions of section 54F, the residential house must be in India. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax( Appeals)-12, Bengaluru failed to appreciate the fact that in view of settled ruling of interpretation of tax statute, the residential house purchased/ constructed must be in India and not outside India. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax( Appeals)-12, Bengaluru failed to consider the Memorandum explaining provisions in the Finance Bill 1982 that the exemption in section 54F is granted with a view to encouraging....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ide the country and declaimed the exemption and determined  the taxable capital gains of Rs. 6,76,02,248/- and passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 24/3/2016. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). In the appellate proceedings, the ld AR of the assessee argued the grounds and reiterated the submission made before the lower authorities. The Sole dispute is with respect to claim of exemption u/s 54 is not allowed to the assessee as investment was made outside the country. The ld AR supported his arguments with the judicial decisions and also the amendment to sec. 54F effective from Finance Act 2014 which is applicable w.e.f 1/4/2015 where there is restriction in respect of investment made outs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fect contend on the same issue of exemption under section 54F, these are taken up together for adjudication. The issue relating to investment in a house property in a foreign country for cialmifig exemption under sections 54 and 54F in an assessment year prior to assessment year 2015-16 is not res integra. It has been held in Vinay Mishra v ACIT [2013] 141 lTD 301(Bang. Trib) that the words "in India "cannot be read into section 54F when Parliament in its legislative is.dom had deliberately not used the words "in India" in section 54F in the Act. In Leena Jugalkishor Shah v ACIT(Tax Appeal No. 483 of 2006) , Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in its order dated 14.06.2016 held that the language of section 54F of the e before amendment ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the orders of the higher appellate authorities should  be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not "acceptable" to the department- in itself an objectionable phrase-and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish no ground for not following it unless its operation has been suspended by a competent court." The same judicial principle has been reiterated several times by the different Courts and as mentioned by the appellant in its ground no. 16.. Therefore, considering the hierarchical nature of judicial administration of the disputes in Income Tax matters, the decision of ITAT Bengaluru has a binding precedent value over the subordinate authorities includ....