SHIVKUMAR SANGAPPA SABOJI,BELGAUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), PANAJI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 160/PAN/2019Status: DisposedITAT Panaji23 December 2022AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for the Section 54 deduction. It followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision which allowed deduction for multiple residential units, and noted that the amendment to Section 54 making it applicable to 'one residential house' was prospective.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deduction under Section 54 for three flats purchased/constructed for reinvestment of capital gains. The CIT(A) denied this claim, citing precedents that multiple flats are not eligible for deduction.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 54 for the purchase/construction of multiple residential units. Whether the amendment to Section 54 is retrospective or 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(3)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, PANAJI BENCH “SMC” : PANAJI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Shri Shivanand Halbhavi
For Respondent: Smt. Neelima Nadkarni, Sr.DR
Hearing: 29.11.2022Pronounced: 28.12.2022

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14 is directed against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Bangalore-12, Bangalore’s order dated 28.03.2019 passed in case No.10445/CIT(A)-12/Bang/2017-18, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”].

2.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

3.

It emerges during the course of hearing and from a perusal of CIT(A)'s detailed discussion in paragraphs 27 to 47 that he has declined the assessee’s claim of section 54 deduction regarding three flats as to have been constructed/purchased for re- investment of the corresponding capital gains.

2 ITA.No.160/PAN/2019 Shivkumar Sangappa Saboji, Belgaum. 4. The Learned DR vehemently argued in light of CIT(A)'s detailed discussion that he has rightly followed ITO vs. Sushila Jhaveri [2007] 107 ITD 327 (Mum.) as well as Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs. Dilip Kumar & Co. [2018] 9 SCC 1 (SC) (FB) that such deduction claim of multiple flats is not eligible for deduction.

5.

All these Revenue’s arguments hardly deserve to be accepted. This is for the precise reason that the hon’ble Karnataka high court happens to be assessee’s jurisdictional high court which has already settled the issue in many of it’s decisions namely CIT vs., Smt. K.G. Rukminiamma 331 ITR 291 (Kar.) holding the concerned taxpayer as eligible for the impugned deduction. This is further coupled with the fact that we are in assessment year 2013- 14 whereas the legislature has amended sec.54 of the Act by substituting “residential house” to “one residential house” w.e.f. 01.04.2015 carrying prospective effect only. I thus follow hon’ble jurisdictional High Court decision hereinabove to treat the assessee as eligible for claiming impugned sec.54 deduction. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

6.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

More judgments on Section 54

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →