TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 625
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the New Asset i.e house property. The addition hence, may be deleted entirely. 2. The learned CIT-A erred in confirming disallowance of exemption u/s. 54 by A.O. amounting to Rs. 63,60,146/- by denying 31st March 2015 as possession date of the New Asset i.e house property. The addition hence, may be deleted entirely. 3. Ld. CIT(A) erred in considering two relevant dates while denying deduction/ exemptions u/s. 54 and 54F of Income Tax Act for same transaction. 4. Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered submission of the appellant that deductions u/s. 54 and 54F of Income Tax Act can be claimed simultaneously. 5. Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered submission of the appellant that amount of Rs. 90,00,000/- paid in cash is eligible for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sale (Unregistered) The appellant had claimed deduction u/s. 54/54F in respect of the capital gains arising on sale of the above assets, in view of purchase of new residential bungalow at 36A/26, C-1, Atharva Siddhi Apartment, E-Ward, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur - 416 003 from one Mr. Krishna N. Lad for sale consideration of Rs. 3,06,00,000/-. The possession of said property was taken over on 31.03.2015 in terms of the agreement entered into between him and the owner of the property. The sale consideration for purchase of the above new residential house was paid during the period 20.05.2014 to 02.12.2014 of Rs. 1,30,00,000/- as extracted by the AO on page 2/3 of the assessment order and a further sum of Rs. 90,00,000/- was paid in cash in 2014 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....new residential property. 8. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR filed submissions placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Beena Jain Vs. CIT 217 ITR 363 (Bom.), submits that the construction of Bungalow was already done and completion certificate was obtained from Kolhapur Municipal Corporation on 28.02.2014. He further submits that substantial payment of Rs. 90,00,000/- in cash was made on 19.12.2014. He further submits that in view of the statement u/s. 132(4), goes to prove that the property was purchased prior to one year before the sale of the original asset. Thus, he submits that the appellant is not entitled for deduction u/s. 54/54F of the Act. 9. We heard the rival submissions and perused the m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mrs. Shahzada Begum (1988) 173 ITR 397 held that the term "purchase" employed in sub-section (2) of section 54, is not used in the sense of legal transfer and therefore, the holding of a legal title within a period of one year is not a condition precedent for availing deduction u/s. 54. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced below : "6. Taking into consideration the letter as well as the spirit of section 54 and the word "towards" used before the word "purchase" in sub-section (2) of section 54, it seems to us that the said word is not used in the sense of legal transfer and, therefore, the holding of a legal title within a period of one year is not a cond....