TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 715
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T(A) on the following issues:- a. Rejection of claim for deduction u/s. 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟); b. Addition made u/s. 68 of the Act in respect of sale of shares; c. Addition made u/s. 68 of the Act in respect of unsecured loans; 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of running pre-school for toddler kids.The assessee filed her return of income for the year under consideration declaring a total income of Rs. 6.14 crores. The assessee had sold shares of a private limited company and earned long term capital gain therein. The assessee invested a part of sale consideration in purchase of a residential flat and accordingly claimed deduction u/s. 54F of the Act during the year un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore than one residential house on the date of transfer of original asset (here shares). The AO noticed that the assessee has held more than one residential house as stated in her Balance Sheet and accordingly took the view that the assessee is not eligible for claiming deduction u/s. 54F of the Act. 3.2. The Ld.CIT(A) noticed that various properties noted down by the AO are either commercial property or has been transferred earlier or does not belong to the assessee. He noticed that the assessee was having only one residential house as on the date of transfer of shares. Accordingly, he held that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s. 54F of the Act. The revenue is aggrieved. 3.3. We heard the parties and perused the record. We no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant, which is mentioned as inadvertent error by the appellant. Further, the appellant had rectified said error in the balance sheet of AY 2021-22 i.e. year under consideration. Therefore, the erroneous disclosure made In AY 2019-20 and AY 2020-21 cannot be adopted as basis to disregard the legitimate deduction available to the appellant. In view of the registered gift deed and other documentary evidences it is found that the appellant was not owning property no 1 i.e. Flat No. 701, Indraprastha, Katar Road Borivali, Mumbai-400066, on the date of sale of shares. Property 2 : Flat No. 1301, Trimurti, Keluskar Road, Dadar West, Mumbai-400028: 6.8 The underlined property was sold by the appellant on 31.3.2021 to her son M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is reasonable to conclude that the appellant is not owner of said premises. Property 4: Shop no.4, Ground Floor, SarswatI Vasant Sager Complex, Thakur Village, Kandivall (East), Mumbai - 400101 6.14 The appellant submitted that underlined property was a commercial property and not a residential property as contemplated by the provisions of Section 54F. In this regard, the appellant submitted copy of agreement before learned AO and the extract of the same has been re-produced by the learned AC) in the assessment order at pars 4.6 (page no. 23 of the assessment order). 6.15 The learned AO has merely stated that the details provided by the appellant as not matching with the documents submitted whereas in the extract....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be deleted." 3.4. Thus we notice that the Ld. CIT(A) has examined the details of each of the properties referred to by the AO and has given clear cut finding that the has owned only one residential house on the date of sale of shares, meaning thereby, the AO has misled himself in this matter. Before us, the revenue could not contradict the findings so given by the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we affirm the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. 4. The next issue relates to the addition of sale consideration of shares received as gift from her son. The assessee had received 1 lakh shares of M/s Creative Stylo Packs Private Ltd., as gift from her son on 27-10-2020. The said shares were sold by the assessee for a considerationof Rs. 6.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., we are of the view that the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in holding that the sale consideration of Rs. 6.90 crores cannot be considered as un- explained cash credit. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 6.90 crores made by the AO u/s. 68 of the Act. 5. The last issue relates to Rs. 20,82,520/- relating to un-secured loans added u/s. 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. The AO noticed that the assessee has received funds from certain sources and treated the same as un-explained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) noticed that the assessee has explained the nature of cash credits found in the bank account and accordingly deleted the same. 5.1. We heard the parties a....