TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 503
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT(A)') erred in passing the order dated 11.12.2025 ('impugned order') under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and law. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is invalid, arbitrary and unlawful. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Appellant has fulfilled all the prescribed conditions for availment of deduction under section 54 of the Act. Hence, the Appellant is entitled to the claim of deduction amounting to Rs. 52,11,904/- under section 54 of the Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that as per the provisions of section 54 of the Act, the capital gains derived from sale of Flats in Shree Varun CHSL, Juhu were utilised by the Appellant for purchase of "a residential house property". Therefore, the claim of deduction made by the Appellant under section 54 of the Act amounting to Rs. 52,11,904/- ought to be allowed. 4. The Appellant seeks leave to add, alter, and amend the above grounds whenever required." 3. The brief....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he letter relied upon by the assessee merely contains a statement of facts and cannot, in our considered view, be regarded as objections to the reopening of the assessment in the manner contemplated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra). In the absence of any specific objections having been raised against the reasons recorded for reopening, there was no occasion for the Ld. AO to dispose of such objections by passing a separate speaking order. Accordingly, the contention sought to be raised by the assessee through the Additional Grounds on this issue is devoid of merit. Therefore, the Additional Grounds raised by the assessee is rejected. 7. The Ld. AR contended that the assessee had sold the residential flat amount to Rs. 2,96,00,000/- after indexation of said flat the index cost of purchase derives to Rs. 32,89,036/-. Hence, the assessee on sale of residential flat incurred total capital gain Rs. 2,63,10,964/-. The assessee also sold an office with a value of Rs. 10,00,000/- and the capital is arising out from the said office premises amount to Rs. 8,93,350/-. Considering the sale of flat and the office the total capital gain is ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sset or a residential house in the given circumstances of availability of such residential houses as per the requirement of the HUF will not alter the position of interpretation. 21. In our understanding, if the word 'a' as employed under Section 54 prior to its amendment and substitution by the words 'one' with effect from 01.04.2015 could not include plural units of residential houses, there was no need to amend the said provisions by Finance Act No.2 of 2014 with effect from 01.04.2015 which the Legislature specifically made it clear to operate only prospectively from A.Y.2015-2016. Once we can hold that the word 'a' employed can include plural residential houses also in Section 54 prior to its amendment such interpretations will not change merely because the purchase of new assets in the form of residential houses is at different addresses which would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. So long as the same Assessee (HUF) purchased one or more residential houses out of the sale consideration for which the capital gain tax liability is in question in its own name, the same Assessee should be held entitled to the benefit of deduct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are of the view that the claim of deduction raised by the assessee under Sec. 54 in respect of investment made towards purchase of residential house at Mumbai and Pune was well in order. We thus in context of the issue under consideration set aside the order of the CIT and uphold the claim of deduction as was raised by the assessee. The Grounds of appeal Nos.1 to 3 are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. The Ground of appeal No. 4 being general in nature is dismissed as not pressed." 10. The Ld. DR argued and contended that the assessee had invested in more than one flats. So the benefit of the section 54F is not applicable. The Ld. DR stands in favor of the orders of revenue authorities. The Ld. DR invited our attention in the observations of the Ld. CIT(A) in para 5.3 which is reproduced as below: "5.3 Grounds 2 5.3.1. The appellant had claimed exemption u/s 54 for Rs. 2,72,04,314/- on purchase of residential property. During the assessment proceedings, the AO had found out that out of the above amount two residential properties were purchased and had rightly disallowed the relief claimed on second property amounting to Rs. 52,11,904/-. As per the....