Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Shri Joseph J. Mudaliar Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ITAT Mumbai)
Appeal Number :  ITA.NO.1603/Mum/2013
Date of Judgement/Order : 30/05/2014
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Claim u/s 54/54F may be allowable in case of purchase of more than one new flats when such flats constitutes one residential house

Shri Joseph J. Mudaliar Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ITAT Mumbai), ITA.NO.1603/Mum/2013

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.

0 Comments

  1. vswami says:

    To Further Share:
    The ITAT Order, if were to be cared and looked into, may be noted to have been passed as recently as in May 2014, being close to but anterior to the announcement of the Budget proposal to make amends to the extant law (sec. 54 and 54 F). Now, as made clear in the said proposal, the referred amendments, made by way a “rationalization measure”, are to become effective from April 1, 2015, assessment year 2015-16, and onwards. By necessary implication,therefore, for any assessment year 2014-15, or earlier, the extant law as before amendment must apply.

    In this view of the matter, going by the very same “rational” thinking, the Revenue is expected, rather ought to be urged, to treat the related issue (s) for the preceding years as once for all settled in taxpayers’ favour. In other words, in the interests of natural justice, more so to go by common sense, the Revenue should forthwith , conceding the correct legal position as aforesaid, come out with a directive or advice as the case may be, to the concerned authorities, to immediately dispose of all the cases across the country accordingly, wherever pending, by a simple order or judgment to fall in line with the extant law before the amendments.

    For instance, in the itat case (Mum) under reference, no attempt should be made to take up / prolong the matter any further, but treat it as a CLOSED CHAPTER SO TO SAY ; that is, with no need for even any further hearing of both sides. Thereby, save , besides the hassle and hardship, further cost of litigation, in the larger public interest.

    It is hoped the underlying purposeful message will, for obvious reasons, be reached to the IT Department, by one and all truly concerned, at the earliest.

  2. vswami says:

    Sorry; i am not clear on one intricate point- are, or why should, these old decisions, be, of relevance, so as to be of help to taxpayers,for assessment year 2015-16,and onwards,in view of the latest amendments of the law? in other words, post amendment, the old judicial/quasi-judicial opinion, in any case, ia believed to call for a review in the light of the amended law, particularly for posterior. If remember, a short write-up has been displayed on this website itself posing the possible doubts about an adverse view being taken on the ground of ‘retroactive'(as opposed to ‘retrospective’) effect of the amended law. Incidentally,to recall, in AN ARTICLE in the ICAI Journal, August Issue,page 188/48, its learned author, a senior member,in one’s understanding, has thrown up a view to the effect that the Revenue may try and hold that this amendment is classificatory in nature and hence is applicable retrospectively.While, left to self,to say the least, feel strongly that such a possibility is extremely remote and a non-starter, it is recommended to study independently, and if puzzled, seek a clarification from the author himself.
    Disclaimer: This comment is simply intended to share own independent thoughts. Anyone, if learned,but in his wisdom having a difficulty in understanding the purport or import of the comment as put across with no obligation but voluntarily ,will have to find his own way to have his doubts, if any, cleared, if so required by a competent tax expert active in field practice.

  3. rakesh says:

    Dear Sir :

    I happen to be avid reader of your article being sent for the last more than two months especially on Corporate Law and assist Advocate VP Nehra and Advocate Sharma on week ends.

    Your articles are quite interesting and keep oneself updated of the happening in MCA and other comments of legal illuminaries.

    Thanks & regards,

    R Takru
    B.Com., LL.B. (Hons)
    Mob 9818699677

  4. rakesh says:

    Dear Sir :

    I happen to be avid reader of your article being sent for the last more than two months especially on Corporate Law and assist Advocate VP Nehra and Advocate Sharma on week ends.

    Your articles are quite interesting and keep oneself updated of the happening in MCA and other comments of legal illuminaries.

    Thanks & regards,

Leave a Comment

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

Sponsored
Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930