GIRISH MOHAN,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURGAON

ITA 8816/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 July 2023AY 2016-1710 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the cost of improvement, finding the evidence insufficient. However, it allowed the Section 54F deduction, holding that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including a change of land use certificate and a valuation report, establishing the construction of a residential unit.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deductions for cost of improvement on a property sold and for exemption under Section 54F for investment in a new residential house. The Assessing Officer (AO) and CIT(A) disallowed the cost of improvement due to unreliable evidence and partly disallowed the Section 54F deduction, citing a small constructed area relative to the land size and lack of proof of residential intent.

What were the issues?

Whether the cost of improvement on a sold property is allowable based on submitted evidence, and whether the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 54F for constructing a residential unit on purchased land.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54F

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 BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Adv Sh. Raghav Sharma, CA
Hearing: 19/04/2023

PER C. M. GARG, J. M.:

1.

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)-1, Gurgaon dated 23.09.2019 for AY 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the Ld CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the disallowance of the cost of improvement in incurred by the appellant on the property which was sold by him.

2.

That the Ld CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. 54F.

3.

That the Ld CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. 54F on the ground that the appellant has not constructed the residential house.

4.

That the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law and the violation of rudiment

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 54F

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →