image

Section 54/54F deductions are allowed for purchase of multiple independent house units

Sub Logo - Case LawsRatio Decidendi: The Andhra Pradesh High Court decided in this case that the ITAT Special Bench Verdict on purchase of multiple under Section 54/54F is not good law. A purchase of two residential flats entitles the buyer to an exemption u/s 54 of the IT Act with respect to capital gains on sale of the properties.

CLR Editorial Notes: This case refers to an appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) by the Revenue department which challenged the order dated 09-09-2011 in I.T.A.No.284/Hyd/2011 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench “B”, Hyderabad.

The assessee offered long term capital gains on sale of property and claimed s. 54 deduction on the ground that he had purchase two adjacent residential flats. The AO held that the deduction could not be given for both flats on the ground that they were independent units, separated by a strong wall. The CIT(A) and Tribunal allowed the claim on the basis that s. 54 deduction was available for purchase of multiple flats, even if the flats were on different floors. On appeal by the department to the High Court, HELD dismissing the appeal:

“The expression a residential house in s. 54 (1) has to be understood in the sense that the building should be of residential nature and a should not be understood to indicate a singular number. Where an assessee had purchased two residential flats, he is entitled to exemption u/s 54 in respect of capital gains on sale of its property on purchase of both the flats, despite the fact that the flats were purchased by separate sale deeds. Deduction is allowable even if the flats are on different floors. On facts, as the two flats purchased by the assessee are adjacent to one another and have a common meeting point, the deduction cannot be denied (D. Ananda Basappa 309 ITR 329 (Kar), K. G. Rukminiamma 331 ITR 211 (Kar) followed; Susheela M. Jhaveri 107 ITD 327 (Mum) (SB) held not good law)”

—————————————————

Case Files available for download

—————————————————

Main Case File: CIT vs. Syed Ali Adil (Andhra Pradesh High Court)

Reference Case File: Income Tax Officer vs Ms. Sushila M. Jhaveri on 17 April, 2007

 

Tags: Andhra Pradesh High CourtCapital GainCITCommonwealth Law ReportsHyderabadIncome taxOrder of AustraliaRatio decidendi

profile image

About eMinds Legal

eMinds Legal

eMinds Legal is a Corporate Law Firm based in Gurgaon, India specializing in Corporate Legal, Corporate Secretarial and Compliance. The Firm comprises of a team of Corporate Lawyers and Company Secretaries with in-depth subject matter knowledge and participative industry experience of over 15 years.

Corporate Law Referencer

Recent Articles

Recent Legal updates

Recent Gst Updates