This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Exemption U/s. 54 for Reinvestment in 3 residential houses having common amenities?
Case Law Details
- Case Name
- A.C.I.T. Vs Smt. Reshmi P. Loyalka (ITAT Kolkata)
- Appeal Number
- Only available for paid members
- Date of Judgement/Order
- Only available for paid members
- Related Assessment Year
- 2012-13
- Courts
- All ITAT, ITAT Kolkata
Upgrade to Basic or Premium to download.
Already Upgraded? Log in.
Table of Contents▸
ACIT Vs Smt. Reshmi P. Loyalka (ITAT Kolkata)
Reinvestment in 3 residential houses having common amenities is eligible for section 54 exemption as single residential house
Amendment in Section 54 cannot be applied retrospectively
ACIT Vs Smt. Reshmi P. Loyalka (ITAT Kolkata)
The short point of dispute to be resolved in this appeal is two fold:-
a) Whether the reinvestment made by the assessee in 3 residential houses having common amenities, kitchen, common entrance, common house name, common electrical, common storage, common water, common garden, common boundary wa...
to ADD-on (yielding to an irresistible temptation):
No gain saying /exaggeration that, -THE DEVIL is in DETAILS. So much so, one would have thought that, the old mutually contradicting view (s) , which lead to inconsistent court (judicial) decisions, on the woeful and brainteaser- controversy,- Does ‘a’ signify, or is meant / intended by the Legislature to denote, ‘ONE’ or ‘MORE THAN ONE’, has been set rest, once for all, To be precise, that must be so after the amendments made with a prospective implication. Be that as it may, the instant case goes to show that the field reality is quite different from what one so thought !
In short, should one re-think, – the referred controversy is still kicking and very much alive; or is sought to be kept alive, to eternity- thanks to the ‘omnipotent’ Revenue / the EXeCuTiVe , the driving force behind ?
Without any desire to go through the ITAT’s Order or specifically comment thereon:
Two points of grave doubt arise, requiring clarification:
1. Even after the subject amendment, is it not open to press for tax exemption u/s 54 in respect of investment in one house property, but made, not in the same but in two different ‘previous years’.
2. For the other point, read through the published Article – (2014) 226 TAXMAN 143 (Mag.); in para 5.1- ‘A simple illustration’ .
courtesy