Audit Assistant
804 Points
Joined May 2009
I do not agree with Karan.
Please refer to HC decision, CIT Vs D Ananda Basappa (2009) 309 ITR 329 (Kar HC)
Held: Exemption is available even if more than one residential house is purchased, such restriction is only w.r.t section 54F, and not section 54.
PLease note that KC Kaushik case was decided by ITO, in Bombay, where as Ananda Basappa case is a HC decision. I am aware of the fact that any decision from HC/tribunal/CIT/ITO are binding only on their jurisdiction, such decisions are neither binding nor a precedence for any other authority for ariving at a decision, except for their jurisdiction.
However more weightage may be given to HC decision by another HC, no compulsion though. It is also to be noted that there is no SC decision on this matter. Going by the intention of law makers, investing on more than one property should be available for exemption. If ivesting on one property is itself allowed as exemption, why not on another property cannot be allowed??? Impossible for an assessee to find a property which is of same cost as that of capital gain.