If the interpretation as has been given by the AO is accepted, that the word used ‘purchased’ is required to be restricted only to actual purchase and if any addition, alteration or demolition of the property is carried out by the assessee for the purposes of reconstruction after the demolition and for making it convenient for his use, then the cost incurred by the assessee for that purpose would not be eligible for deduction u/s. 54F, is against the very purpose of providing this deduction in the statute book.
Our reading of the provision makes it abundantly clear that the purchase do not include a purchase which is not a purchase of an asset which is not incapable of being used by the assessee. The assets for the purpose of Section of 54F should be an asset purchased by the assesse and if an assessee incurs a cost for making it useful and convenient after taking approval from the competent authority, as in the present case, then the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s. 54F of the Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT
The present appeal is filed by the Revenue, against the order of the arising out of the order of the CIT (A)-I, Bengaluru, date 29.04.2016, for the assessment year 2010-11, on the following grounds :
Paid content
Become a Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Premium member.
Join the professionals, businesses and finance teams who rely on TaxGuru's morning digest of notifications, judgments and analysis. Curated by editors, free forever.
No spam, ever
One-click unsubscribe
Get the TaxGuru App
Read the latest tax & corporate law updates on the go. Download our app and never miss an update.
Comments are closed.