Case Law Details

Case Name : Shyamlal Tandon Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
Appeal Number : IT Appeal No. 1774 (HYD.) of 2012
Date of Judgement/Order : 21/01/2014
Related Assessment Year : 2003- 04
Courts : All ITAT (5510) ITAT Hyderabad (324)

CA Sandeep Kanoi

It is evident from the impugned orders of the lower authorities and other material on record that intention of the parties when the development agreement was entered into was to construct a residential property. Municipal permission has also been obtained only for construction of a residential complex.

Ultimately, the assessee has received possession of such residential property. It may be true that the said property was put to use subsequently for commercial use. Merely because of change in the use of such property for non-residential purposes, it cannot be said that what was acquired by the assessee was not a residential property, but a commercial one.

Subsequent change in the user of the property does not disentitle the assessee to relief under S.54F of the Act, as held by Hyderabad Bench B of this Tribunal in the case of Shri M.V.Subramanyeswara Reddy (HUF), Hyderabad (supra) vide order dated 27.12.2011 where in it was held that “Mere non residential use subsequently would not render the property ineligible for benefit u/s.54F, if it is otherwise a residential property, as held by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mahavir Prasad Gupta Vs JCIT (5 SOT 353). Respectfully following the said decision of the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the CIT(A) had rightly allowed deduction u/s. 54F”

Download Judgment/Order

Author Bio

Qualification: CA in Practice
Company: Taxguru / Sandeep Kanoi & Associates
Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra, IN
Member Since: 27 Feb 2017 | Total Posts: 646
A Blogger by Passion and a Chartered Accountant by Profession. View Full Profile

My Published Posts

More Under Income Tax

Posted Under

Category : Income Tax (28342)
Type : Judiciary (12648)
Tags : CA Sandeep Kanoi (282) ITAT Judgments (5689) Section 54F (183)

0 responses to “Mere non residential use subsequently would not render property ineligible for benefit U/s. 54F”

  1. sakthivel says:

    Please reply How I can get the benefit of section 54F on commercial Property sold and was commercial and the property purchase was commercial.

    Kind Regards,

  2. Vinay Awasthi says:

    How I can get the benefit of section 54F on commercial property, where the property sold was commercial and the property purchase was commercial.,

Leave a Reply

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

Featured Posts