Case Law Details
Anita Mahindrakumar Oberai Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
Assessee purchased two flats to be used as a single dwelling unit. Since these two units are adjacent to each other and meant for use as a single property, mandate of the substituted provision, being, one residential house, is still also satisfied. The view point of the ld. CIT(A) that the amendment carried out to section 54F w.e.f. 01-04-2015 has changed the legal position, is albeit factually correct, but, in the given facts, even the amended provision comes to the rescue of the assessee inasmuch as the assessee acquired one residential house only comprising of two flats. In view of the foregoing reasons, I am satisfied that the assessee deserves exemption u/s.54F on second unit as well. I order accordingly. The impugned order is set-aside to this extent.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 24-09-2020 in relation to the assessment year 2015-16.
2. The only issue raised in this appeal is against the denial of exemption u/s.54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) in respect of the second unit of the house purchased by the assessee.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
