TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 1680
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fully owned by the assessee. Otherwise, the assessee purchased the leasehold interest in the said land along with superstructure built thereon. 3. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to the fact that assessee is an individual and holds shares in a company owned by the assessee. He is the Managing Director of that company. The said shares were sold offline and earned capital gains in the A.Y. 2011-12 as well as in the current A.Y. 2012-13. The said capital gains were invested in house property of Laxmi Prasad as per the agreement dated 18-06-2010 relating to the A.Y. 2011-12. Assessee claimed investment of the said capital gains to the extent of Rs. 64.55 lakhs on the said property in the A.Y. 2011-12. However, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ees' own case in ITA No. 1978/PUN/2014 order dated 23-06-2017 for the A.Y. 2011-12. We find the Tribunal vide Para Nos. 13 and 14 has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. For the sake of completeness, we proceed to extract the same : "13. We find similar issue of nature of leasehold rights acquired by the assessee and the claim of assessee for deduction under section 54F of the Act, arose before the Tribunal in ACIT Vs. Asha Ashok Boob (supra) and it was held as under:- "10. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) and the Paper Book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nefit of deduction u/s. 54F to which the assessee is otherwise eligible. As regards the observation of the Assessing Officer that the assessee is only a lessee and the lease period is only 999 years and therefore, the assessee is not the owner of the house, he observed that the long period of lease of 999 years is as good as permanent. The nature of rights enjoyed by the assessee are sufficient enough to show that the assessee is owner of the property and therefore she can be treated as a purchaser for the purpose of Section 54F. As regards the allegation of the Assessing Officer that the assessee has not taken over possession of the property he held that by making approximately 80% of the payment before the time limit of three years the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mrs. Prema P. Shah (supra). In the above decision the Tribunal has held that the lease is valid for a period of 150 years, which is in perpetuity and as such, the assessee is as good as absolute owner of the property. In the instant case the lease is for a period of 999 years subject to renewal for further period of 999 years. Further, as per clause 26 of the lease agreement, the assessee enjoys all the rights, i.e. transfer, mortgage, sub-lease etc. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee is not the owner of the property." 14. Both the authorities below had relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. T.N. Aravinda Reddy (supra) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for a price or payment. We do not agree with the principle applied by the Assessing Officer as the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not been considered in entirety. The apex court goes on to say that purchase is as buying for price or equivalent price by payment in kind or adjustment towards an old debt or for any other monetary consideration. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further went on to say that if you sell your house and make a profit, but if you buy or build an another house, subject to the conditions of section 54(1) of the Act, you are exempt. We find that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the other hand helps the case of assessee. In the totality of the above said facts and circumstances, we hold....