Prior to A.Y. 2015-16 word ‘a’ employed under Section 54 can include plural residential houses

2 Comments

1. vswami says:

   RIDER
   The only change, the legislature , thought of and made, in its wisdom , for the reasons commonly known, is to substitute for the ‘letter’ – ‘a’ in the erstwhile expression ‘a house property’. Obviously and undeniably , that is on the right premise that the other two concepts, – ‘house’and ‘property’ have to be construed in the same manner , as has been done from time immemorial, having regard to its always accepted ordinary as well as legal meaning; not only for the purposes of sec 54 and 54 F but for all other purposes- other applicable sections of the IT Act , so also all other applicable laws- Contract Act,, TP Act , Stamp Act, etc.
   As pointed out, the special provisions, MANDATES OR NOT, of the state enactments – e.g. MOFA and MAOA of MAHARASHTRA, OUGHT TO BE, LIKE OR NOT, KEPT IN LACER SHARP FOCUS

     Reply

   July 16, 2020 at 8:00 am
2. vswami says:

   OFFHAND
   Q

   6. The Revenue filed Second Appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which allowed the Appeal filed by the Revenue by its impugned order dated 27.02.2009 and restored the order passed by the Assessing Officer. The operative portion of the order passed by the Tribunal is quoted below for ready reference:-

   “Therefore, in view of the facts, circumstances, relevant provisions of law and ratio of the above decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of K.C.Kaushik V. P.B.Rane, Fifth Income Tax Officer and others [supra], hich is direct on the point, it is held that the Assessing Officer is legally correct in restricting the claim of the assessee under Section 54 with respect to the investment out of LTCG made in one residential house only to the extent of Rs.43,45,000/- as indicated in the assessment order, in the absence of assessee having given preference with regard to any other house, thereby disallowing the claim with respect to other two properties as well as investment made in the CGAS and the ld. CIT(A)’s action in giving different interpretation to the provisions is found to be not legally and factually correct to allow the entire claim of the assessee, as such, while accepting the appeal of the Department, we reverse the impugned order and restore that of the Assessing Officer.

   8.As a result, the appeal of the Revenue gets accepted.”
   UQ
   In one ‘s independent perspective, the observations and the view taken by the ITAT in the second appeal as recorded in paragraph 6 of the Judgment do prima facie make every sense; besides, in substance, by any sane reasoning and sound logic makes for a better view; in that, appeals to common sense.
   Premised so, the contrarian view taken by the other authorities, and, in every other case thus far adjudicated upon,- also upheld up to the stage of the HC in some of those cases – lastly in the case of Navin Jolly, therefore, cannot, in own firm longstanding conviction, be rightly regarded to have conclusively set at rest, once for all, the ongoing controversies , sought to be impudently kept alive (that is , to be given a fresh lease of life). More so, after the amendment of the law made by the Finance (N0. 2) Act of 2014.
   For a brief discussion (attempted critique) in the matter, anyone (not barring lawyers), if so inspired, may care to and mindfully go through the Article (though left incomplete) published @ “Law Vs Case Law Role of A Professional (CA And Lawyer)”

   courtesy
   (In the larger profoundly Public Interest)

   *(Comment edited by Tax Guru Team at the request of Comment Author)

     Reply

   July 15, 2020 at 10:37 am