MADHAV RAMCHANDRA KARODE,MUMBAI vs. ITO 20(2)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3443/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 December 2015AY 2008-093 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 the entire deduction under Section 54F even if the new property is purchased in joint names with his son, following High Court precedents. The AO's disallowance of 50% of the claim was deemed incorrect.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deduction under Section 54F on capital gains from the sale of a residential property. The AO disallowed the claim as the new property was purchased in the joint names of the assessee and his son. The CIT(A) allowed 50% of the deduction.

What were the issues?

Whether a deduction under Section 54F can be denied if the new residential property is purchased in the joint names of the assessee and his son.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54F,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)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, “B”, BENCH MUMBAI

Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM

Hearing: 10/09/2015Pronounced: 08/12/2015

O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), Mumbai, dated 28-3-2013, for the assessment year 2008-2009, in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) of the I.T.Act. 2. The assessee has taken nine grounds of appeal

, but the only grievance of the assessee relates to declining of claim of deduction u/s.54F in respect of 50% of the capital gains accrued on sale of residential house.

3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. During the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee had claimed exemption against capital gains from the sale of property at Chanchal Niwas. The AO further noted that the deed of purchase 2 reflected the name of the assessee’s son Shri Ashok Karode first, followed by the name of assessee as the second holder. He then disallowed the claim placing reliance on the decisions rendered in the cases of Jai Narayan Vs. ITO, 306 ITR 335(P&H) and Prakash Vs. ITO (2008) 173 Taxmann 311 (Bom) and observing that in order to qualify for exemption the asset should be in the name of the assessee only.

4. By the impugned order the CIT(A), allowed 50% of deduction on the plea that in the new house so purchased the assessee has also included the name of his son. Against this order of CIT(A) the assessee is in further appeal before us.

5. We have considered rival contentions, carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to sale and investment of the sale proceedings in the new house property. Since the assessee has bought the house in which name of his son was included, the CIT(A) has declined 50% of assessee’s claim. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Mrs. Jennifer Bhide, 349 ITR 80 and also by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ravinder Kumar Arora, 342 ITR

38. In the case of Mrs. Jennifer Bhide (supra), the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held that exemption u/s.54/54EC cannot be denied to the assessee, who has purchased the property, where it is found that sale proceeds of residential property was invested in a new residential property, merely on the ground that assessee has included name of her son in the new property. Similarly, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ravinder

More judgments on Section 54F

All 2,628 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54F →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →