AJAY KHANNA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6190/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 February 2020AY 2013-144 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 54 even if the investment is made in more than one residential property, following the precedent set by the Hon'ble Madras High Court.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deduction under Section 54 for investment in a second house property. The CIT(A) disallowed this claim, stating that the deduction is only allowed for investment in one residential property.

What were the issues?

Whether deduction under Section 54 is allowable for investment in more than one residential property. Whether the amendment by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 is prospective.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘D’ BENCH, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

ORDER

PER H.S. SIDHU, JM

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals]-29, New Delhi dated 30.09.2016 pertaining to assessment year 2013-14 on the following grounds:- 1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in disallowing the claim of deduction u/s. 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of investment made in second house property by the appellant, on the ground that deduction under section 54 is allowable with respect to investment made only in one residential property.

2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in not appreciating the fact that the amendment brought u/s. 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, w.e.f. 01.04.2015 is prospective in nature and hence the disallowance of deduction in investment made by the appellant in second house property is bad in law. 2. At the time hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the issue regarding the claim of deduction u/s. 54 of the I.T. Act, 1961 in respect of investment made in the second house property by the assessee has already been adjudicated and decided in favour of the assessee by the various Hon’ble Courts and Tribunal including the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court dated 14.03.2019 reported in [2019] 105 taxmann.com 151 (Madras) in the case of Tilokchand & Sons vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-II (4), Madurai. He also draw our attention towards para no. 20 of the aforesaid judgment by filing the copy of the said decision and stated that respectfully following the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court, the addition in dispute may be deleted by allowing the appeal of the assesee.

3. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the revenue authorities especially the judgment dated 14.3.2019 of the Hon’ble Madras High Court reported in [2019] 105 taxmann.com 151 (Madras) in the case of Tilokchand & Sons vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-II (4), Madurai wherein the Hon’ble Court has held that “whether where assessee HUF sold its residential house and

More judgments on Section 54

All 1,745 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →