TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (10) TMI 213
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irst and second ground of appeal relates to exemption under section 54 in respect of cost of second flat purchased by the assessee. 3. Brief facts, as stated and as borne from the record are that the assessee agreed to sell her residential flat at "Shivthirth" Building to Parikh family for Rs. 51,51,000/-. The deal was done through two brokers and it was agreed to pay 1% brokerage to each of them. Since the sale consideration exceeded Rs. 10 lakhs the statement in Form No. 37-I was submitted before the appropriate authority. The appropriate authority passed an order under section 269UD(1) acquiring the flat for Central Government and the consideration was fixed at Rs. 50,62,398/-. 4. The assessee entered into an agreement on 16-10-1990 fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wing of the possession of any immovable property to be taken or to be retained in part in performance of a contract. In the appellant's case there is no dispute about the possession of the flat. In the case of K.G. Vyas v. 7th ITO (16 ITD 195) the ITAT held that "in the present case, all the four Hats had been purchased by the assessee in the same building for the purpose of his own residence and were being used by him for that purpose only. The mere fact that the assessee had purchased them jointly either in the name of his wife or in the names of his sons would not materially affect or alter the factual position that he was the owner of all the four flats and that he was also living in them along with the members of his family. The fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....B. Rane, Vth ITO [1990] 185 ITR 499 and on the decision of Bombay Tribunal in the case of Gulshanbanoo Mukhi v. Joint CIT [2002] 83 ITD 649. 7. Mrs. Shobha H. Jagtiani, ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee had domain and possession both the units, which constitute one residential house. She further stated that the agreement dated 3-5-1991 for purchase of Unit No. 1202 was not required to be registered. The payment was made as an adjustment towards the debt. The said transaction constitute purchase within the meaning of section 54 of the Income-tax Act. She relied on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Hilla J.B. Wadia [1995] 216 ITR 376 and on the decision of CIT v. T.N. Aravinda Reddy [1979] 120 ITR 4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tial houses, as the exemption under section 54 is available for purchase of a residential house. 11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.N. Aravinda Reddy has held that the word 'purchase' in section 54(1) had to be given its common meaning i.e., to buy for a price or equivalent of price by payment in kind or adjustment towards a debt or other monetary consideration. In the case of Hilla J.B. Wadia, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that what needs to be establish is that whether the assessee has acquired a right in specific flat and whether substantial investment has been made within the period which will entitle the assessee to obtain possession of the flat. Their Lordships have also referred to the CBDT's Cir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and family members. It has been held by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Shiv Narain Chaudhari v. CWT (Lucknow) while explaining the meaning of house for exemption under section 51(iv) of WT Act, that self-contained dwelling unit which are contiguous and situated in same compound and within common Boundaries and having unity of structure could be treated as one house. 14. The Bombay Tribunal in the case of K.G. Vyas, has held that, the four flats purchased by the assessee in the same building for the purpose of his own residence, will entitle him for relief under section 54. The mere fact that assessee had purchased them jointly cither in the name of his wife or in the names of his son would not materially affect or alter th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppropriate authority not intervene, the assessee would have sold flat to Parikh family as agreed. The fact that the particular flat was acquired by the Central Government does not mean that the two brokers did not perform their duty or did not render their service for which brokerage was due to them and was paid accordingly. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim on the basis that flat was acquired by Central Government and was not sold to Parikh family. On appeal the ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim on the ground that the payment was made for specific services, which were rendered by them. He held that brokerage was paid for services rendered, even though such services did not resulted into sale, the same is to be allowed as these were mea....