TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 282
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1, wherein the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well in law on the subject, the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in disallowing the claim of deduction of Rs. 9,61,49,283/- u/s 54F of the Act while calculating Long term capital gain. 2. It is therefore prayed that the above disallowance made by the assessing officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) may please be allowed. 3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal." 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is individual, filed her return of income for A.Y. 2020-21 on 31/03/20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s invested Rs. 9.61 crores for a construction of a residential house with her husband for construction of a residential property. The plot of on which construction of residential house is made, is in the name of her husband. The approval plan was sanctioned by the Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC) in the name of her husband. Ownership is also vested with her husband. She made a mutual understanding for bearing part of construction cost with her husband. The assessee by referring the provisions of Section 54F of the Act, stated that it could be appreciated that there is no restriction in Section 54F that assessee should construct a residential house on a plot of land owned by herself only. To support her submission, the assessee also relied ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the submission of assessee, concurred with the finding of Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(A) also tried to distinguish the facts of the cases relied by the assessee by holding that the ratio of decisions relied by the assessee are not applicable on the facts of the assessee's case. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the submissions of the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax- Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) for the revenue and have perused the orders of the lower authorities carefully. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that a very short dispute is involved in the present appeal. There is no dispute about....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r)]. * Mahadev Balai Vs. ITO [ITA No 333/JP/2016], * PCIT vs. Rahul Uday Taljapurkar [264 Taxman 0036]. * PCIT vs. Vaidya Panalal Manilal HUF [259 Taxman 0019], * CIT vs. Chandanben Maganlal [245 ITR 0182], * Smt. Subbalakshmi Kurada vs. ACIT [ITA No 2493/Bang/2019]. * Bhagwan Swroop Pathak vs. ITO [ITA No 2754/Del/2018]. * Shri Ramphal Hooda vs. ITO [ITA No 8478/Del/2019], 5. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue supported the orders of the lower authorities. The ld. CIT-DR for the revenue submits that the assessee has earned huge capital gain, which is invested and claimed exempted. The plot of land on which residential house is constructed in the name of her hu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e name of some of its member instead of HUF, deduction under Section 54F in the hands of HUF would be permissible. Further, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Chandanben Maganlal (supra) also held that where the assessee merely had purchased 15% undivided share in a residential house, she would not be disentitled to claim benefit of exemption under Section 54. 7. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora (supra) while referring the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT Vs. Poddar Cement (P) Ltd. 226 ITR 625 held that Supreme Court in the said case, has accepted the theory of constructive ownership. It was held that Section 54F mandates that the house should be purchased by the assessee and it does not stipula....