1. Venkatesh Murthy Vs. Income Tax Officer, I.T.A. Nos. 719 & 720 OF 2007, Date of Order: 04.04.2014, High Court of Karnataka
No concealment penalty if sec. 54F relief was denied since deal of acquiring house property couldn’t completed
Where the
property was in litigation, the transaction was not completed. The
Assessing Officer, in the order, observed that the assessee had not
furnished any information regarding the Court matter-litigation against
the said property. This observation is factually incorrect. In
paragraph-5 of the reply dated 25-5-2006 the assessee had clearly made
reference to the copies of the court paper and stay order in respect of
said property which were enclosed with the reply. This is a fit case
where the Assessing Officer ought not to have imposed any penalty in
exercise of the discretion vested in him. The order imposing penalty,
thus deserves to be set-aside. Order accordingly. No order as to costs.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. B.Sivasubramanian Vs. Income Tax Officer, I.T.A. No. 01/Mds/2013, Date of Order: 12.03.2014, ITAT – Chennai
Exemption u/s 54F cannot be denied on account of unapproved building plan.
The provisions
of section 54F mandates the construction of a residential house, within
the period specified. However, there is no condition that the building
plan of the residential house constructed should be approved by the
Municipal Corporation or any other competent authority. If any person
constructs a house without approval of building plan, he will be raising
construction at his own risk and cost. As far as for availing exemption
u/s.54F, approval of building plan is not necessary.
(Please click here to view Judgment)
New User? 
Subscribe Now