Jasmine Bhaskar Shah Vs PCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
An order u/s 263 was passed by CIT on grounds that exemption u/s 54F was not admissible as assessee owned more than one residential property as on the date of transfer & in the said order it was also stated that holding period of previous owner was not to be considered for indexation benefit on shares received as gifts.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 12/02/2016 | Husband acquires shares |
| 27/02/2020 | Assessee receives above shares as gift from husband.
Assesee gifts house to daughter in law |
| 13/03/2020 | Assessee sells the shares and claims indexation from 12/02/2016 |
| 27/08/2020 | Assessee buys duplex house (treated as one unit) & claims exemption u/s 54F |
PCIT claimed that assessee owned more than one residential house as on the date of transfer since Property A was gifted just a few days earlier (on 27/02/2020) & assessee also owned Property B, which violates provisions of sec. 54F.
Assessee clarified that Property A was gifted before the date of transfer & Property B was a commercial property. Thus, assessee did not own any residential property on the date of transfer. The confusion about commercial property might have arose due to lack of distinction between residential & commercial property address in ITR.
