Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Priya Mahajan Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
Appeal Number : ITA No. 384 of 2015
Date of Judgement/Order : 26/11/2015
Related Assessment Year : 2008-09
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Brief of the Case

Punjab and Haryana High Court held In the case of Priya Mahajan vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh and another that the lower authorities have concurrently recorded that since the individual shares were not specified in the sale deed and the house property as well as the housing loan is to be taken as jointly by all the co-owners, the logical conclusion is that everyone had equal share in the property and the assessee was entitled to 1/4th deduction, i.e. 25% of the entire interest. Also the assessee has claimed that she alone has invested for purchase/construction of the house property, but no evidence in support of this stand is available on records. Further the Learned counsel for the assessee was not able to demonstrate that the approach of the authorities below was erroneous or perverse or that the findings of fact recorded were based on misreading or mis-appreciation of evidence on record. The view of the Assessing Officer, the CIT (A) and the Tribunal is a plausible view based on material on record which warrants no interference by this Court.

Facts of the Case

The assessee filed her return of income on 31.7.2008 for the assessment year 2008-09 declaring the income at Rs. 7,44,834/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return on 18.1.2009 declaring the income at Rs.3,08,663/-. The assessee claimed deduction of interest on housing loan of Rs. 6,86,971/- under Section 24(b).

The Assessing Officer had noticed that there were four co -sharers in the house in question and the loan was taken jointly by them in their names. Since the share of the individual was not specified in the sale deed, the logical conclusion was that everyone had equal share in the property. The Assessing Officer had observed that the interest paid on the loan was to be divided among four co-owners as per the provisions of Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and, thus, allowed only 1/4th of the total interest payment to the assessee.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031