Case Law Details
Shri Rajkumar Mandhani Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad)
In the case before us, the assessee and his wife are independent income tax assessees and the assessee already owned one house at Kilpauk, Chennai. The assessee therefore, cannot be said to have invested in order to avoid capital gains to tax in his hands, as u/s 54F(1), the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 54F even if he already holds one property in his name. Therefore, the investment by the assessee of the capital gains in purchase or construction of a residential house at Alagappa Nagar, Chennai in the name of his wife will not disentitle the assessee from exemption u/s 54F of the Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT
This is assessee’s appeal for the A.Y 2012-13 against the order of the CIT (A)-11, Hyderabad, dated 31.01.2017. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. The Order of the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax, in so far as it is against the appellant, is contrary to the facts of the case and provisions of law .
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Similar case is going on in regard to Benami Properties Act before DGIT and also pending before Hon’ble Calcutta Highcourt-Ref Case-32118/2014,order dated16th june,2015 passed by Dr.Sambuddha Chakraborty,Hon,ble judge.Another same case pending before the judge case no-FA 184 OF 2017 WITH CAN 12045/2017.
Also pending before 5th court Jr.Division-Civil judges court Howrah-Title suite-9328/2014 and 6220/2014 in regard to illegal mutation,illegal construction and Mis use of Ad interim injunction.
Kindly check .All properties are obtained benami name and muated by Block land and reforms department -Govt of W.B ALONG WITH ORDER OF DEMOLITION ILLEGAL PART BY HOWRAH ZILLA PARISHAD FROM 2012 ON WARDS.