Case Law Details
Case Name : Arunava Bhattacharjee Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata)
Related Assessment Year : 2016-17
Courts :
All ITAT ITAT Kolkata
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Arunava Bhattacharjee Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata)
Introduction: The recent case of Arunava Bhattacharjee Vs ACIT before the ITAT Kolkata dealt with an important interpretation of the Income Tax Act pertaining to the claim of deductions under Section 54F. The court clarified that if an assessee owns more than one residential house, they are not eligible for this deduction.
Analysis: The appellant, Arunava Bhattacharjee, had sold a guest house and computed a long-term capital gain from this sale. The assessee claimed a deduction under Sections 54 and 54F of the Act. However, the Principal Commissione...
This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
When section 54 does not stipulate any such restriction of owning more than one residential house at the time of transfer of the original asset , it is surprising and disheartening to note that the PCIT did not accept the claim of the assessee and to add fuel to the fire both the assessing officer and the CIT (Appeals) did not accept the claim. In my opinion, this is a case where action needs to be taken against the PCIT, assessing officer and CIT (Appeals) by the CBDT, if it is considered that responsibility is to be fixed on the erring officers. Nowadays this type of irresponsible orders have become the order of the day as there is absolutely no control and supervision by the higher authorities. Hope that this comment reaches the eyes and ears of CBDT .