TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 89
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on facts and in law in upholding the disallowance of deduction of Rs. 1,86,36,599/- u/s 54 of the IT Act on the ground that the assessee has made the investment in the multiple residential units ignoring the material and evidences showing that all the units were adjacent to each other and the above action is against the ratio of judgment in the case of Gita Duggal 257 CTR 208 (DEL)." 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and has declared income from salary, rental income and also income from long term capital gain on sale of immovable properties. The assessee e-filed her return of income on 20.07.2016 u/s 139(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] for the year under consideration declar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounsel for the assessee continued by saying that in the case of the assessee, the assessee purchased seven flats in the same apartment on the same floor. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Lata Goel ITA 127 /2025 & CM No. 25518/2025 order dated 30.04.2025. 9. Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Pawan Arya [supra]. 10. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. Brief facts of the instant appeal is part denial of deduction against long term capital gain u/s 54 of the Act from sale of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Gita Duggal 357 ITR 153(Del) was not applicable, post above amendment. 13. We find that the Hon'ble Delhi Court in the Lata Goel in ITA 127/225 vide its order dated 30.04.2025, referring its own decision in the case of Gita Duggal case [supra], had held that multiple residential units may be construed as a single residential house for the purposes of exemption u/s 54F of the Act and that the term 'a residential house' can be construed as 'one residential house'. It would be pertinent to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi Court in the case of Lata Goel which is as under: 22. It is also relevant to refer to the decision of the coordinate bench of th court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ite common to find such arrangements, particularly postretirement. One may build a house consisting of four bedrooms (all in the same or different floors) in such a manner that an independent residential unit consisting of two or three bedrooms may be carved out with an independent entrance so that it can be let out. He may even arrange for his children and family to stay there, so that they are nearby, an arrangement which can be mutually supportive. He may construct his residence in such a manner that in case of a future need he may be able to dispose of a part thereof as an independent house. There may be several such considerations for a person while constructing a residential house. We are therefore, unable to see how or why the physic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 54 and 54F of the Act. However, the said decisions would be equally applicable for construing the term 'one residential house' as used in clause (i) of the proviso to Section 54F of the Act. We say so because in Pawan Arya v. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) as well as in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gita Duggal: (supra) and Mrs Kamla Ajmera v. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), the term 'a residential house' has been construed to mean 'one residential house'. We find it difficult to accept that, in the given facts, different floors of a house are required to be considered as multiple residential houses. 26. In view of the above, we find no infirmity with the decision of the learned ITAT in holding ....