Case Law Details
Shri Bhatkal Ramarao Prakash Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
Conclusion: Assessee was entitled to the benefit of deduction u/s.54F to the whole extent of investment in purchase of new asset, even though property had been purchased in the joint names of assessee, his wife and son.
Held: The issue was whether deduction u/s. 54F had to be restricted to only 1/3rd of the cost of acquisition of the new asset for the reason that assessee purchased the property along with the name of his wife and son shown as purchaser in the document under which the property was purchased. Revenue claimed that the purchase of new asset should be only in the name of the transferor i.e., the Assessee. and to the extent the capital gain was invested in the joint name of the assessee’s wife and son, the deduction could not be allowed. It was held in the case of DIT (Intl.) Vs. Mrs. Jennifer Bhide (2011) 15 com82 (Karn.), the entire consideration had flow from assessee and no consideration had flown from her husband. Merely because the husband’s name was also mentioned in the purchase document, assessee could not be denied the benefit of deduction. The law is well settled that where two views are possible on an issue, the view favourable to assessee should be followed. Following the above decision, it was concluded that assessee should be entitled to the benefit of deduction u/s.54F to the whole extent of investment in purchase of new asset, even though the property had been purchased in the joint names of assessee, his wife and son.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT
This appeal by the assessee is against the order dated 24.08.2018 of the CIT(Appeals)-V, Bengaluru, relating to assessment year 2015-16.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
