TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 169
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... tribunal' for short). The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2008-09. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court on the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in denying the exemption under section 54F and consequently passed a perverse order on the facts and circumstances of the case? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the appellant has not acquired a property, and the transaction was mere paper transaction when the issue was not before it and consequently passed perverse order on the facts and circumstances of the case? (iii) Without prejudice whether the Tribunal ought to have held that the Transaction of release....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n respect of which the claim under Section 54F of the Act has been made and the assessee without prejudice had re-worked the amount of cost of acquisition of new asset, which was reduced by the Assessing Officer to Rs. 91,57,683/-. Accordingly, the claim under Section 54F of the Act was denied. 4. The assessee thereupon preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 24.09.2013 inter alia held that assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 54F of the Act to the extent of 50% of the cost of acquisition of the new property, which was estimated at Rs. 91,58,083/-, which comes to Rs. 45,79,042/-. Being aggrieved, by the aforesaid order, the assessee as well as the revenue filed an appeal before t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Act is required to be set aside and the matter deserves to be remitted to tribunal to adjudicate the issue raised by the assessee in her appeal in accordance with law. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions 'NAVIN JOLLY VS. ITO', (2020) 424 ITR 462 (KAR.), 'CIT VS. GITA DUGGAL', (2013) 357 ITR 152 (DEL.), 'MR.M.GEORGE JOSEPH VS DCIT IN ITA NO.238 OF 2015 DATED 12.07.2021 (KAR.), 'CIT VS. MRS. JENNIFER BHIDE', (2012) 349 ITR 80 (KAR.) and 'CIT VS. KAMAL WAHAL', (2013) 351 ITR 4 (DEL.) 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the Assessing Authority rightly rejected the claim of the assessee as she was owning more than one house on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nstant case, admittedly, the assessee within one year before the date of transfer i.e., on 24.02.2007 has purchased along with other co-owners a property and had sold the capital asset on 24.10.2007. The revenue has raised the following grounds in appeal: (i) The order of CIT (A) is opposed to facts of the case. (ii) The CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the fact, that the assessee is not eligible to claim deduction under Section 54F to the extent of 50% of investment in an asset in which she already had a stake. (iii) The CIT(A) erred in holding the three residential houses owned by the assessee in OOtocamund as a single residential house for the purpose of claiming deduction under Section 54F relying on the judgment in the c....