Case Law Details
Case Name : Dr. Sudhir Naik (HUF) Vs. Income Tax Officer (ITAT Hyderabad)
Related Assessment Year : 2003-04
Courts :
All ITAT ITAT Hyderabad
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Dr. Sudhir Naik (HUF) Vs. ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
Another contention is about claim of 54F/54. It was the contention that assessee has sold all the flats allotted to him and therefore, at the time of investing in the new house, he has no other house except this house. As seen from the agreements and the principles of law involved, all the apartments received in the development agreement would become one house technically, even though they are of independent units. But, when the claim is made, it was the contention of assessee that all those flats were sold. Therefore, assessee does not own any ot...
This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
OFFHAND
“….As seen from the agreements and the principles of law involved, all the apartments received in the development agreement WOULD BECOME ONE HOUSE TECHNICALLY , EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE OF INDEPENDENT UNITS even though they are of independent units. But, when the claim is made, it was the contention of assessee that all those flats were sold. Therefore, assessee does not own any other house, except the house in which he has invested…..” -?!
(FONT supplied to focus on the obvious forbearing contradiction in terms)
< Calls for an independent in-depth study, in all its ramifications; may worth doing so in the light of discussion in, – (2014) 226 TAXMAN pg 143-151 !
NOTE: Prima facie, the assessee's contention has to be decided,- there being no fresh facts required, having regard to the applicable provisions of the IT Act; to be conjointly read with the state law on 'Flats'. The doubt is, – instead of remanding, could not the ITAT decided the issue, within its vested powers ?!