Case Law Details
V.V.V. Satyanarayana Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
Contention of Revenue
Assessee’s claim of exemption u/s. 54F was also rejected by the AO, since as per Section 54F, if the assessee owns more than one residential house other than the new asset as on the date of transfer of the original asset and since the assessee owns five residential units as on the date of transfer of capital asset(undivided) share of land, other than the two flats occupied by him, the assessee is not entitled to any exemption u/s. 54F of the Act.
Held by ITAT
With reference to the deduction u/s. 54/54F, the AO’s contention that assessee owns more than two residences was not correct. Assessee got eight apartments subsequently, on transfer of one residential house property, by way of development agreement. Nowhere the AO contends that assessee had more than one building as on the date of transfer i.e., on 19-06-2001. Subsequent acquisition of any number of houses will not prevent assessee claiming the deduction for transfer as on 19-06-2001. Therefore, the AO’s view cannot be upheld. Assessee is entitled for deduction u/s. 54/54F. With reference to the claim of deduction, assessee has claimed only for contiguous flats. But law on this as propounded by the Hon’ble High Court of AP in the case of CIT Vs. Syed Ali Adil in ITA No. 410 of 2012, dt. 20-12-2012 is as under:
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
