Case Law Details
DCIT Vs. Vikas Oberoi (ITAT Mumbai), I.T.A. No. 4362/M/2011 (AY: 2002- 03), Date of decision- 20.3.2013
Briefly stated relevant facts of this issue are that the AO restricted the claim of an exemption u/s 54F of the Act to Rs. 1,10,59,626/- only as against the assessee’s claim of Rs. 1,23,50,854/-. It was invested by the assessee on two residential flats located adjacent to each other. In this regard, AO made dis allowance of Rs. 12,91,228/- by giving the reasoning that the assessee has invested the capital gain in two separate flats, hence, as per the provisions of 54F, exemption has to be granted only in respect of investment in a residential house. On appeal, CIT (A) allowed the assessee and directed the AO to recompute the exemption u/s 54F by treating the both units as comprising of a residential house and the relevant para is reproduced here under:
“6.9.5. Having analyzed the judgments which end up defining “a residential house”for the purpose of exemption from capital gains tax, it is relevant to notice in this case that the same appellant has purchased two contiguous flats with a common wall. In view ofthe fact that the Courts have been of the opinion that flats on different floors being utilized for different purposes also qualify to be considered as “a residential house”, there is no reason to treat two contiguous houses as separate for this purpose. Accordingly, it is held that the Ld AO is not justified in not allowing exemption in respect of investment in one of the units. The AO is directed to recompute the exemption u/s 54F by treating both the units as comprising of “a residential house”for this purpose. This ground of appeal is accordingly allowed.”
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
