CIT v. D. Ananda Basappa

Asst CIT 14(1), Mumbai vs. Arpita S. Bajla, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

…them as two separate residential houses and disallowing the benefit of section 54F. I find that 11 Ms. Arpita S. Bajla the view of the assessee is further supported by decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Ananda Basappa reported in [2009] 309 ITR 329. The second allegation of the AO that there is no approved sanction of any municipality for the joining of the said flats gets defeated by the latest ruling of the Chennai ITAT in B. Sivasubramaniam v ITO [2014] 45 taxmann.com 74 wherein it was held that "The provision of section 54F mandate the construction of a residential house, within the per…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-16(1), Mumbai vs. Pooja Bedi, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

…ingular “a residential house” also permits use of plural by virtue of Section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act. This is the view which is taken by this court in the aforesaid Anand Basappa's case in I.T.A.No. 113/2004, disposed of on September 20, 2008([2009] 309 ITR 329 (Karn)]. ” 15. That was the case where the assessee gave his property for joint development agreement for putting up flats. Under the terms of the agreement, out of eight flats to be put up, four flats had to be given to the assessee, representing 48%, the consideration for the said four flats was consideration for selling 52% of the site. It was…

Smt.Manju Mahendra Goyal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Manju Mahendra Goyal Income Tax Officer-19(2)(3), A/802, Surya Apartments, Room No.2018, Matru बनाम/ 53, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mandir, Tardeo Road, Vs. Mumbai-400026 Mumbai-400007 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aafpg2990N

…ned counsel for the appellant. 4. As regards claim for exemption against acquisition of two houses under Section 54 of the Act, the same is not admissible in plain language of statute. In the judgment of Karnataka High Court in CIT v. D. Ananda Basappa [2009] 309 ITR 329 (Kar), referred to in the impugned order, exemption against purchase of two flats was allowed having regard to the finding that both the flats could be treated to be one house as both had been combined to make one residential unit. The said judgment, thus, proceeds on a different fact situation. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant wanted to rais…

ITO 16(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Shashanka Ghosh, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-16(1)(4), Vs Shri Shashanka Ghosh, Room No.438, 4Th Floor, C-701, Jay Bharat Chs Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Off. Yari Road,Near Amarnath M. K. Road, Tower, Varsova Andher (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400061 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Acwpg5915E

…ed counsel for the appellant. 4. As regards claim for exemption against acquisition of two houses under Section 54 of the Act, the same is not admissible in plain language of statute. In the judgment of Karnataka High Court in CIT v. D. Ananda Basappa [2009] 309 ITR 329 (Kar), referred to in the impugned order, exemption against purchase of two flats was allowed having regard to the finding that both the flats could be treated to be one house as both had been combined to make one residential unit. The said judgment, thus, proceeds on a different fact situation. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant wanted to rai…

Amirali Akbarali Engineer, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Amirali Akbarali Engineer, Vs Acit, A/201, Senha Apna Ghar, Ward-24(1), Unit No.11, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Swami Samarth Nagar, Mumbai Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacpe9331N

…ideration he had purchased two flats in Mayfair Apartment, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and he is entitled to claim deduction/exemption under section 54 of the Act for an amount of Rs.93,80,192/- and that in view of the decision in CIT v. D. Ananda Basappa [2009] 309 ITR 329/180 Taxman 4 (Kar.), even though section 54 mentions that the proceeds should be invested in "a residential house", it being a beneficial provision, it should be construed liberally and the deduction cannot be restricted to only one residential house and it should be extended to the purchase of two adjacent residential flats. 4. The Assessing Off…

Aftab A L Furniturewala, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shrin.K. Pradhanshri Aftab A L Furniturewala Income Tax Officer-19(3)(1) 601, Charisman Apartments Piramal Chambers 48, Gurunanak Road Vs. Lower Parel, Mumbai 23Rd Road, Bandra (W) Mumbai 400050 Pan –Aabpf9617P Appellant Respondent

…elevant period does not mean one residential house. In support of such proposition he relied upon the following decisions: - i) CIT vs. Gita Duggal (2013) 357 ITR 153 (Del.) ii) CIT vs. DevedasNaik (2014) 366 ITR 12(Bom.) iii) CIT vs. D. Ananda Basappa (2009) 309 ITR 329 (Kar.) iv) CIT vs. K.G. Rukminiamma (2011) 331 ITR 211 (Kar.) As regards the issue relating to claim of deduction under Section 54 of the Act in respect of garages, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that as per the condition imposed by the House Society the assessee could have purchased the residential flats only if it had parking sp…

ACIT-16(1), Mumbai vs. Shrey Guleri, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, Circle-16(1) Shri Shrey Sharma Guleri बनाम/ Room No.439, Aayakar Prime Channel Software Bhawan, 101, M.K. Road Communications P. Ltd. Vs. Mumbai 400 020 215, Kuber Complex New Link Road Andheri (West) Mumbai 400 053 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaapg4566H याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri Saurabh Rai यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Dilip V. Lakhani ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/03/2018 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 22/03/2018

…ned counsel for the appellant. 4. As regards claim for exemption against acquisition of two houses under Section 54 of the Act, the same is not admissible in plain language of statute. In the judgment of Karnataka High Court in CIT v. D. Ananda Basappa [2009] 309 ITR 329 (Kar), referred to in the impugned order, exemption against purchase of two flats was allowed having regard to the finding that both the flats could be treated to be one house as both had been combined to make one residential unit. The said judgment, thus, proceeds on a different fact situation. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant wanted to rais…

ACIT 23(1), Mumbai vs. T.K. Venkateshwaran, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

…. 4. On the other hand, the Ld.AR strongly supporting the order of the CIT(A) submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Rugmini Amma (supra) and CIT vs Anand D Basappa 309 ITR 329 (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has given a categorical finding in respect of the word “ a” used in section 54 to mean a residential house. The Ld.AR further submitted that if more than one residential flats is purchased and converted into a single habitable unit, then the same would be considered as a single residential unit…

George Britto Jesudas, Thane vs. ITO 2(3), Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm Mr. George Britto Jesudas Vs. Ito – 2 (3), B-Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar It A-2, Prakriti Building Shrishti Complex, Park, Road No.16-Z, Sector 5A, Mira Road (East) Near Ambika Nagar Thane – 401 107 Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane – 400 604 Pan/Gir No. Appellant) Respondent) ..

…zed / accepted the fact that prior to the said date, the benefits of the deduction under section 54F were available for investment in more than one residential house properties. Following judicial pronouncements support this proposition.  D. Ananda Basappa - 309 ITR 329- Kar. (against which the department's appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed),  K.G. Rukminiamma (Kar), 331 ITR, 211 and  CIT vs. Geeta Duggal 257 CTR 208 (Del). 4 Mr. George Britto Jesudas 8. It was further submitted that all the above decisions support the contention of the assessee, the flats were either adjacent or in the same or one bu…

Ravi Shankar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Mr. Ravi Shankar The Assistant Commissioner Flat No.S4, Apsara Building, बिधम/ Of Income Tax-16(3), Aaykar Nargis Dutt Road, Pali Hill, Bhavan, Mumbai 400 020 Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai-400 050 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Adwpr7959N (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

…ingular “a residential house” also permits use of plural by virtue of Section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act. This is the view which is taken by this court in the aforesaid Anand Basappa's case in I.T.A.No. 113/2004, disposed of on September 20, 2008([2009] 309 ITR 329 (Kam)]. ” 15. That was the case where the assessee gave his property for joint development agreement for putting up flats. Under the terms of the agreement, out of eight flats to be put up, four flats had to be given to the assessee, representing 48%, the consideration for the said four flats was consideration for selling 52% of the site. It was…