Case Law Details
Vijay Kumar Wanchoo Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
Conclusion: In section 54 was transfer of a long term capital asset’ being the residential house referred to a residential house which might comprise more than one building or buildings structure; but the same were used as a single residential house. Thus, even if more than one unit were adjacent to each other and were being used as a single residential house by assessee and his family members, the same would be considered as residential house u/s 54 and entitled to exemption.
Held: Assessee sold four flats bearing numbers 301, 302, 401 and 402 in building ‘Sand Pebble’ at Andheri (W) Mumbai. He had claimed deduction under section 54. AO was of the view that according to Sec.54, subject matter of sale should be a residential house and therefore, only one house used for residence was sold or transferred, giving rise to capital gain should be exempted under section 54. As the assessee had sold four flats; therefore, AO denied the exemption under section 54. It was held that the expression used in section 54 was “transfer of a long term capital asset’ being the residential house” referred to a residential house which might comprise more than one building or buildings structure; but the same were used as a single residential house. Thus, even if more than one unit were adjacent to each other and were being used as a single residential house by assessee and his family members. The same would be considered as residential house u/s 54. AO had not disputed the fact that all these flats were used by assessee as residential house; therefore, the requirement of section 54 was the capital gain arising from transfer of a residential house was fulfilled.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
