TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 372
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... FACTS AND SUBMISSION MADE, CLAIMED u/s 54F AMOUNTING TO RS.24,72,272/- IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT IN SECOND RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT DEDUCTION u/s 54F BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF SECOND RESIDENTIAL HOUSE." 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed original return on 18/11/2014 declaring total income of Rs.2,41,550/-. The assessee then filed revised return on 27/03/2015 declaring total income of Rs.26,66,570/- . The assessee was engaged in the business of running petrol pump. For AY 2014-15, the assessee had shown income from Business and LTCG. The AO noticed that assessee had claimed exemption u/s 54F by investing the sale consideration in flat number 904 and 604 of Dreams Ragini. The AO in the assessment order has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to as the new asset), the capital gain shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section, that is to say,- (a) if the cost of the new asset is not less than the net consideration in respect of the original asset, the whole of such capital gain shall not be charged under section 45 ; (b) if the cost of the new asset is less than the net consideration in respect of the original asset, so much of the capital gain as bears to the whole of the capital gain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be charged under section 45: [Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply where- (a) the assessee,- (i) owns more than one residential house, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ght of the admitted factual position that all the 15 flats are located at the same address namely, 'Rain Forest' No. 57, New No. 36, Taylor's Road, Rem Street, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. (ii) As a sequitur, we are unable to persuade ourselves that the 15 flats, even if they are located in different blocks would not disentitle the assessee from getting the benefit of Section 54-F of IT Act. (iii) We have no hesitation in holding that the order of ITAT which has been called in question before us is correct, there is no infirmity in the said order, does not call for any interference and we are of the view that the said order deserves to be confirmed. (iv) We also noticed that in all the judgements, irrespective of whether it i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., assessee does not buy more than one property in that sense of the matter. Flats, apartments are completely based on coownership. (vii) Owing to all that have been stated supra, we conclude that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 54-F of IT Act. " Unquote. 6.1 In the case of Gumanmal Jain, it was an admitted facts that all the flats were on different floors, having separate kitchen. Separate entrance, but the Hon'ble High Court after discussing various decisions held that the assessee was eligible for exemption u/s 54F of the Act. 7. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Navin Jolly Vs. ITO 117 Taxmann.com 323 vide order dated 18th June, 2020 held as under : Quote, "11. Alternatively, we hold that assessee....