Rahil Mahesh Kumar Nizamuddin Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)
Held that deduction under section 54F is available against new residential house acquired outside India as provisions of section 54F doesn’t use the word ‘in India’.
Facts-
Deduction u/s 54F of the Act in respect of investment of Rs.8,74,20,000/- in purchase of a residential building in Newton MA, USA. The assessee claimed the above deduction before the AO. The AO rejected the same on the reason that it was mentioned only as “a residential house” and not as “a residential house in India”. The assessee was free to make the investment anywhere in the World. According to the AO, the benefit of section 54F of the Act should be given only in respect of investment in residential house in India.
Conclusion-
ITAT Bangalore, in the case of Vinay Mishra Vs. ACIT, held that on a plain reading of the provisions of section 54F of the Act, we do not find anything therein to suggest that the new residential house acquired should be situated in India. The jurisdictional High Court in the case of Director of Income-tax (International Taxation) v. Mrs. Jennifer Bhide [2012] 349 ITR 80 (Karn) in I. T. A. No. 169 of 2011 has held that introducing a word which is not there into a section amounts to legislating when Parliament has not used these words in the said section. In view of this decision, we are precluded from reading the words “in India” into section 54F of the Act, when Parliament in its legislative wisdom has deliberately not used the word “in India” in section 54F of the Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A) dated 30.3;2019. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
