Case Law Details
Case Name : Gayatri Maheshwari Vs I.T.O. (ITAT Jodhpur)
Related Assessment Year : 2013- 14
Courts :
All ITAT ITAT Jodhpur
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored
Deduction u/s. 24(b) and computation of capital gains u/s 48 were altogether covered by different heads of income i.e., income from ‘house property’ and ‘capital gains’. None of them excludes operative of the other. The interest in question was indeed expenditure in acquiring asset. Since both provisions were altogether different, assessee was entitled to include inte
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Sponsored
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
Just wanted to know, if we need to index the interest paid on housing loan for each year and reduce the indexed value of interest paid on home loan from sale consideration while computing capital gains.
To ADD:
For useful clues,…..may look through, inter alia, – :
Sec 35…to be read with the Experts’ commentary and case law, in Palkhivala’s leading Text Book -Ninth Edition, Vol. I, pgs. 815 , 816.
As may be noted, that is a section which has a long history of several amendments over the decades; one such amendment of relevance herein is of clause (iv) of sub-section (2) effected with retrospective effect. And, the apex court held that the amendment does not impose a new levy or take away ANY EXISTING RIGHT BUT IS MERELY CLARIFICATORY AND VALID (FONT supplied) < Escorts v UoI (199 ITR 43 (SC) )
Sec 80 G…- read sub-section (5A) ; which explicitly prohibits any duplication of claim.
Sec 24 – other related limbs thereof ….
In particular, may study closely the special wording of the Explanation under the section – which, in providing for a deduction of interest , popularly known as ‘Pre EMI’, prohibition of a duplicated claim has been likewise explicitly made; unlike in sec 48, under discussion !
IMPROMPTU
The opening narration is not quite understood, wprt the limited issue in the instant case.
The view handed down is in favour of the assessed; holding
that “the interest paid to bank for acquiring capital asset would be eligible as part of cost of acquisition”.
In the Order, however, reference has been made to reliance on some decided cases; on the proposition that interest on home loan, in the absence of a specific bar, is permissible to be deducted twice; that is once u/s 24 (b) , then again u/s 48; which, on the first blush, may sound contentious.
Even so, on a quick run through certain other sections, it is noted that , after all, this is not the first instance of the kind of above mentioned proposition; and, such a view, cannot be faulted to be illogical and unsound; but is well founded should regard be had to certain other provisions of the IT Act .
For useful clues, anyone intent upon venturing an independent study and insightful appreciation of the attendant nuances of the law, may look through, inter alia,- :
Sec 35…to be read with the Experts’ commentary in Text Book
Sec 80 G…
Sec 24 – other related limbs thereof ….
May dilate, if so decided !