Case Law Details
Smt. Roopa Vs ITO (ITAT Bengalore)
ITAT held that assessee’s claim for exemption u/s 54/54F of the Act in respect of 2 flats in the same residential building complex is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. K. G. Rukminiamma (201 1) 331 ITR 211 (Kar).
On similar facts the same view was also taken by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. V. R. Karpagam (ITA No.301 of 2014 dated 18.08.2014). The Hon’ble Court also held that the Amendment to section 54F of the Act being para materia to section 54 of the Act with regard to substitution of “a” residential unit by Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 was operative only w.e.f. 01.04.2015, whereby exemption for more than one unit/flat (residential house) is to be withdrawn. However, prior to the aforesaid Amendment (supra), a residential house would include multiple flats/residential units in the same apartment building.
In the factual and legal matrix of the case, as discussed above, and respectfully following the decisions of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. K. G. Rukminiamma (supra); of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. V. R. Karpagam (supra) and of the co-ordinate bench in the case of Smt. Nethravathi Vs. ITO (supra), I am of the view that the assessee in the case on hand is eligible to be allowed exemption u/s 54F of the Act in respect of multiple units/ flats i.e., the 2 flats in the same apartment building received by him in lieu of entering into the JDA dated 03.12.2007 with M/s. Sai Deep Estates.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
