Antony Parakal Kurian v. ACIT (2022) 442 ITR 38 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 54 : Capital gains-Profit on sale of property used for residence-Residential property standing in name of wife cannot be considered to be owned by assessee-Difference between section. 54 and section. 54F-Specified Bonds-Assessee can claim exemption under Section 54 as well as section 54EC. [S. 27, 45, 54EC, 54F, Hindu Succession Act 1956, S. 14]

Court held that  the property in Domlur was standing in the name of the assessee’s wife by registered sale deed dated December 8, 2011. For all practical purposes, and even as per section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the property standing in the name of a female heir becomes her absolute property. Notwithstanding that the property standing in the name of the assessee’s wife was held to be eligible for exemption under section 54 of the Act, while considering the exemption under section 54F of the Act, the residential house purchased in the name of the assessee’s wife could not be construed as property owned by the assessee. Excluding this property standing in the name of the assessee’s wife, the property at Bangalore bequeathed to the wife and son of the assessee being considered as justifiable by the Commissioner (Appeals) which had attained finality, what was owned by the assessee on the date of transfer of the original asset-land, i. e., April 10, 2012, was the residential property in Kerala which was subsequently sold on October 8, 2012. The assessee was entitled to exemption under section 54F. (AY.2013-14)