Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : ACIT Vs Keyur Hemant Shah (ITAT Mumbai)
Appeal Number : I.T.A. No. 6710/Mum/2017
Date of Judgement/Order : 02/04/2019
Related Assessment Year : 2013-14
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

ACIT Vs Keyur Hemant Shah (ITAT Mumbai)

Upon perusal, the undisputed facts that emerges are that the assessee has acquired the rights in a duplex flat on 1 2th & 1 3th floor front facing the road admeasuring 1961.75 Square Feets & terrace measuring 881.5 Square Feets as per the attached layout plan along with 4 car parking in building known as Tapovan vide Allotment Letter dated 26/02/2008 issued by DSD Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. for total consideration of Rs.371 Lacs. The said allotment is not a conditional allotment and do not envisages cancellation of the allotted property, in any manner. Therefore, the assessee has acquired right in a specific property which is clearly earmarked in the layout plan. The full payment of the same has been made by the assessee by 24/07/2008 which is evident from assessee’s letter containing payment details as placed on page no. 4 of the paper-book. Subsequently, agreement of sale has been executed by the builder in assessee’s favor on 25/03/2010 which was nothing but mere improvement in assessee’s existing rights to acquire a specific property and part & parcel of the same transaction.

The undisputed fact, in that respect, are that the assessee has made the payment within stipulated time as envisaged by Section 54F and the allotment in a specific property has been obtained by the assessee on 14/04/2012 which is evident from allotment letter as placed on page nos. 186 to 190 of the paper-book. Therefore, since all the conditions of Section 54F was fulfilled by the assessee, there could be no occasion to deny the benefit of deduction to the assessee. Therefore, no infirmity could be found in the impugned order.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI

Aforesaid appeal by revenue for Assessment Year [in short referred to as ‘AY’] 2013-14 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-37, Mumbai, [in short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], Appeal No. CIT(A)-37/IT-886/ACIT-25(2)/1 5-16 dated 27/09/2017 on following grounds of appeals: –

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

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

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031