Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
Popular Search: due date for vat payment :: cpt :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: VAT Audit :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: form 3cd :: TDS :: empanelment :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: VAT RATES
« From the Courts »
  Dr. Gautam Sen vs. CCIT (Bombay High Court)
 Dr. Gautam Sen vs. CCIT (Bombay High Court)
 DCIT vs. Shivshankar R. Sharma (ITAT Mumbai)
 ACIT vs. Jawaharlal Agicha (ITAT Mumbai)
 CIT vs. M/s. D. Chetan & Co (Bombay High Court)
 Makes further amendments to Notification no. 157/90-Customs dated 28th March, 1990 regarding temporary admission under the ATA Carnet
 Appointment of Common Adjudicating Authority by DGRI - 2/2016-Customs
 ransfers Of Hon’ble Members Of The ITAT (September 2016)
 M. G. Contractors Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
 Haryana State Road & Bridges Development Corporation Ltd vs. CIT (P&H High Court)
 Dharamshibhai Sonani vs. DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)

ACIT Central Circle-13 Mumbai. Vs. Shri Vivek Venugopal N0.1583, J-Block 15th Main Road, Anna Nagar Chennai-600 040.
July, 01st 2014
                            "F" Bench, Mumbai

                    Before Shri D.Manmohan, Vice President
                    And Shri Rajendra, Accountant Member

                           I.T.A. No.5454/Mum/2012
                          (Assessment Year : 2009-10)

         ACIT                          Vs.   Shri Vivek Venugopal
         Central Circle-13                   N0.1583, J-Block
         Mumbai.                             15th Main Road, Anna Nagar
                                             Chennai-600 040.
         PAN/GIR No. AEBT 3112 P
         (Appellant)            ..           (Respondent)

              Assessee by :                    None
              Department by :                  Shri Pradeep Shaurya
              Date of Hearing :                26.6.2014
              Date of Pronouncement :          26.6.2014


Per D. Manmohan, V.P :

      This appeal is filed at the instance of the Revenue and it pertains to
assessment year 2009-10. Following grounds were raised.

              "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned
              CIT(A) has erred in allowing the deduction u/s. 54 of the I.T. Act of
              Rs.25,00,000/- out of Rs.32,86,123/- without appreciating the fact that
              the Assessee could not substantiate that the building standing to the
              land was a residential house.

              2.     On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law,
              learned CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence under Rule 46A of
              the I.T. Rules without giving any opportunity to the Assessing Officer."

2.            In short the case of the Assessing Officer is that the Assessee did
not purchase a residential house and, hence, is not entitled to exemption u/s.
of 54F of the I.T. Act, 1961. On appeal filed by the Assessee ld. CIT(A) observed
as under :-
                                    2                     ITA No.5454/M/12

"2.6.2 I have considered the submissions made by the Ld. A.R. and find from
the agreement for purchase of residential house which was also submitted
before the A.O. and a notarized English translation of which has been obtained,
that property in question was purchased by the appellant along with the
Janmam Rights, improvements, house, well and easement rights and land
appurtenant thereto for a consideration of Rs.25 lakh. Thus, the observation of
the Ld. A.O. that it was not possible to ascertain whether the appellant had
purchased a house or merely a piece of land is incorrect. As far as denial of
deduction u/s.54F on the vacant piece of land appurtenant to the house is
concerned, my attention was drawn to the decision in the case of Addl. CIT vs.
Narendra Mohan Unilyal 34 SOT 152 (Del.) and Shyamsunder Mukia vs. ITO
38 ITD (JP) 125 where it has been held that cost of vacant land appurtenant
and forming part of the residential unit is to be considered for claim of
deduction u/s.54F even if no construction has been done on the appurtenant

2.6.3 In view of the above, it is apparent that the appellant is eligible for
deduction us/.54F. However, during the course of appellate proceedings fresh
working of revised claim of exemption has been given which is as under-

       "The sale deed was executed and registered on 5th Nov, 2009 for total
      consideration of Rs.25 Lacs. The assessee has paid a sum of Rs.
      23,70,000/- on or before        31/03/2009 and balance amount of
      Rs.1,30,000/- on 10th April, 2009. The assessee incurred further
      expenditure of Rs.3,97,611/- by way of stamp duty and registration
      charges. Hence total cost works out to Rs. 28,97,611/- .

      In view of the above, assessee at the time of assessment proceeding
      revised the
      claim of exemption u/s. 54F for Rs.28,85,426/-. The working is as

             28,97,611 /- x 1,32,77,264/-
             -------------------------------------- = Rs.28,85,426/-

2.6.4 However, as against the above, Ld. A.O. has observed in the
assessment order that appellant filed a revised claim of deduction u/s.54F to
the extent of Rs.25,00,000/- only. Therefore, I am inclined to allow deduction
u/s.54F only to the extent of Rs.25 lakh as per the claim made by the
appellant before the Ld. A.O.

2.6.5 Accordingly, this ground is partly allowed."
                                        3                     ITA No.5454/M/12

3.            Though the Revenue preferred an appeal before us no evidence
was placed to substantiate its contention. Having regard to the circumstances
of the case and details given by CIT(A) we are of the view that the order passed
by CIT(A) does not call for any interference. In short, order of CIT(A) is affirmed
and appeal by the Revenue is dismissed.

       Order pronounced on 26th Day of June, 2014 .

                Sd/-                                    Sd/-
             (RAJENDRA)                           (D. MANMOHAN)
         ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                        VICE PRESIDENT

Mumbai; Dated : 26/6/2014

Copy of the Order forwarded to :

 1.   The Appellant
 2.   The Respondent.
 3.   The CIT(A)
 4.   CIT
 5.   DR, ITAT, Mumbai
 6.   Guard file.
                                                          BY ORDER,
               //True Copy//
                                                    (Dy./Asstt. Registrar)
                                                         ITAT, Mumbai
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Outsourcing Test Solutions Software Testing Software Bug Testing Software Issues Tracking Software Issue Fix Software Code Optimization Database Design Optimization

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions