2016 (12) TMI 1865

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ncome for the assessment year 2008-09 on 29.09.2008, declaring total income of Rs. 9,06,856/- against the said return of income, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act vide order dated 31.12.2010 at total income of Rs. 1,65,40,730/-. While doing so, the learned AO had denied the claim for exemption of Rs. 1,56,33,870/-, under the provisions of section 54F. 3. The brief facts leading to the impugned addition are as under: i. The assessee along with other co-owners sold the immovable property situated at survey No. 54/1, 54/2 and 54/3, Kalenagrahara Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk for a sale consideration of Rs. 5,35,00,000/- vide sale deed dated 27.10.2007.  ii. The share of appellant wa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... For the purpose of cost of land, the sale deed dated 24.02.2007 is to be taken into consideration and the cost as per the same is Rs. 39,69,933/-. As per the sale deed dt 24.02.2007, the extent of land sold by M/s.Prestige Garden Construction Pvt. Ltd.(sellers) and M/s. Prestige Estates Projects Pvt. Ltd., (builders/confirming party) is 6108 sq ft and the same is sold to Mr. Y. C. Rama Reddy and Mrs. Y. Manjula Reddy. As per this sale deed, the assessee has automatically got a share of 50% in the rights and title of the property." 6. Thus the AO disallowed the claim on the ground that the assessee owns more than one house and the cost of investment also not been proved by the assessee. 7. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e further submitted that any expenditure incurred to make the house habitable constitutes the cost of the new asset which is eligible for relief under section 54F and in this regard he placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Mrs. Rahana Siraj Vs. CIT-I, Bangalore, 58 taxmann.com 333. 11. He further submitted that the assessee was not owning more than two houses on the relevant date as the assessee was owning only one house on the date of acquisition of new asset. 12. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue that comes up for consideration before us in the present appeal is whether the assessee is eligible for exemption under section 54F in view of the fact that the....