Case Law Details
Reji Easow Vs Income Tax Officer (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT Mumbai held that for claiming exemption under section 54 Date on which possession is by the Assessee should be taken as the date of purchase and further section only require Assessee to purchase/Construct a residential house within the specified period and source of funds is quite irrelevant.
Date on which possession is by the Assessee ) should be taken as the date of purchase. The requirement of the Section 54 is that the Assessee should purchase a residential house within the specified period and source of funds is quite irrelevant. Nowhere, it has been mentioned that the funds received as consideration from sale of original asset must be utilized for the purchase of the new residential house [ACIT vs. Dr. P.S. Pasricha : (2008) 20 SOT 468 (Mumbai) (11-01-2008)]. Since the date of purchase falls within a period of 2 years from the sale of Original Asset (i.e. 21.05.2014), the Assessee is entitled to benefit under Section 54 of the Act. The alternate contention of the Assessee, that the benefit of Section 54 be granted to the Assessee by treating the transaction as a case of ‘construction’ in view of the judgment of Hon’ble High Bombay Court in the case of Hilla J B Wadia : 216 ITR 376, now being academic, does not require consideration.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
By way of the present appeal the Appellant/Assessee has challenged the order dated 20.01.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in appeal (10423/2017-18). On the following grounds are as under:-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
No ONE_TO_ONE Matching for SEC 54F; Is this not an already settled proposition!?
READ >https://taxguru.in/income-tax/sec-54f-brain-teaser.html
courtesy