Case Law Details
Case Name : Income-tax Officer Vs. Shri. Ramakrishna M. J (ITAT Bangalore)
Appeal Number : I.T.A No. 1326/Bang/2016
Date of Judgement/Order : 22/09/2017
Related Assessment Year : 2010- 11
Courts :
All ITAT ITAT Bangalore
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored
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.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Sponsored
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
What is competent authority for approval here as mentioned in the judgement
Informative and insightful post. Thanks for writing and sharing this post with us.