Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1 vs Rahul Garg

54F. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual ..., the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchased, or has within a period of three years after that date constructed, one residential house in India (hereafter in this section referred to as the new asset), the capital gain shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section, that is to say,—

(a)

if the cost of the new asset is not less than the net consideration in respect of the original asset, the whole of such capital gain shall not be charged under section 45;

(b)

if the cost of the new asset is less than the net consideration in respect of the original asset, so much of the capital gain as bears to the whole of the capital gain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be charged under section 45:

Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply where -

(a)

the assessee, -

(i)

...

(ii)

purchases any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of one year after the date of transfer of the original asset; or

5.5.

A reading of the statutory litera would show that the section 54F(1) of the Act speaks of one residential house and the construction or purchase of one residential house for offsetting the capital gains. Such offset would fail if another new residential house is acquired within a year of acquisition of the new residential asset. The question that would arise if a literal and pedantic interpretation is provided to this provision. This provision by its plain look would call for a purposive interpretation and one residential house or a new asset would have to be understood in that sense, which has been used in a cognate sense. This is how the courts and tribunals have also interpreted the provision, both prior to and even after the amendment.

5.6.

Before proceeding to have a look at them, it would also be important to take a note of some peculiar facts of this case, which would also be necessary to decide the issue herein. In the AY 2023-24, the appellant earned Long Term Capital Gains of Rs.75,46,30,654 on sale of shares of M/s Mogli Labs (P) Ltd., a company based in Singapore. Against the same, he claimed deduction of Rs. 28,81,62,921/- u/s 54F of the Act in respect of investment made in two adjacent residential properties and the amounts, deposited in Capital Gains account scheme.

Sr. No.	Date of Initial Investment	Plot No.	Total Plot Area (Sq. Mtr.)	Total Covered Area (Sq. Mtr.) (In%)	Purchased from	Investment	Stamp duty	Other Charges	Total
i)	02.05.2022	9, Block-F Sector 44, Noida (Date of Registry : 13.12.2022)	450	150 (33.33%)	Smt. Seema Sharma	13,00,00,000	65,00,000	26,36,537	13,91,36,537
ii)	02.05.2022	8, Block-F, Sector-44, Noida (Date of registry : 23.1.2023	450	155.24 (34.5%)	M/s Spoorty Developers (P) Ltd. through its authorized director Smt. Seema Sharma	11,25,00,000	56,25,000	28,01,384	12,09,26,384
	Total		900	305.24		24,25,00,000	1,21,25,000	54,37,921	26,00,62,921

In addition to the investment, as above, of Rs.26,00,62,921/- in the residential house properties, the appellant deposited an amount of Rs. 2,81,00,000/- in the Capital Gains Account Scheme, 1988. Accordingly, total deduction of Rs. 28,81,62,921/- was claimed by the appellant u/s 54F of the Act.

5.7.

The appellant has submitted that the properties F-8, Sector 44, Noida and F-9, Sector 44, Noida, purchased by him, were adjacent house properties and were amalgamated immediately subsequent to such purchase, and thus, constituted as one single house property for claiming exemption under section 54F of the Act. It has been submitted that both the properties F8 and F9, Sector-44, Noida were effectively owned by same person, Seema Sharma (though one property was registered in the name of company in which she was the director and authorized signatory) and both the properties were purchased together by the appellant. It has been submitted that the appellant wanted to purchase a big residential house property to accommodate his family. Considering the future needs of the family, he wanted to purchase a residential house property of around 1000 sq. metres in Noida. However, in Noida, the maximum size of houses available was only 450 sq. metres and therefore, the appellant purchased two adjacent properties (i.e. F8 Sector 44, Noida and F 9 Sector 44, Noida) of 450 sq. metres each (in total 900 sq. metres) with the intent to have a single residential house. The appellant submitted that the initial payments towards the purchase consideration of both properties were made simultaneously, i.e., on 02.05.2022 (Rs.50 lakhs each) and on 06.05.2022 (Rs.2 crores each) and around the same time (i.e. May and June 2022), approx. 50% of the purchase consideration was paid by the appellant in respect of both the properties. Thereafter, the registry of the property F-09, Block-F, Sector-44, Noida was made on 13.12.2022 and property F-08, Block-F, Sector-44, Noida on 23.01.2023. It has been submitted that the time lag in registries of both the properties was because of the timing of transfer permissions granted by the NOIDA Authority to the seller parties. The copies of the two registered deeds, in respect of the properties were submitted before the AO and have also been filed before me. Thus, to summarize, the sequence of events in respect of purchase of adjacent properties is tabulated as under:

Sr. No.	Plot No.	Purchased from	Total investment made	Date of initial investment made	Date of transfer permission granted by NOIDA Authority to seller	Date of registry
i)	9, Block-F Sector 44, Noida	Smt. Seema Sharma	13,91,36,537	02.05.2022- Rs.50 lacs 06.05.2022- Rs. 2 crores	12.07.2022	13.12.2022
ii)	8, Block-F, Sector-	M/s Spoorty Developers (P) Ltd.	12,09,26,384	02.05.2022- Rs.50 lacs	09.01.2023	23.01.2023

the appellant wanted to purchase a big residential house property to accommodate his family. Considering the future needs of the family, he wanted to purchase a residential house property of around 1000 sq. metres in Noida. However, in Noida, the maximum size of houses available was only 450 sq. metres and therefore, the appellant purchased two adjacent properties (i.e. F8 Sector 44, Noida and F 9 Sector 44, Noida) of 450 sq. metres each (in total 900 sq. metres) with the intent to have a single residential house. The appellant submitted that the initial payments towards the purchase consideration of both properties were made simultaneously, i.e., on 02.05.2022 (Rs.50 lakhs each) and on 06.05.2022 (Rs.2 crores each) and around the same time (i.e. May and June 2022), approx. 50% of the purchase consideration was paid by the appellant in respect of both the properties. Thereafter, the registry of the property F-09, Block-F, Sector-44, Noida was made on 13.12.2022 and property F-08, Block-F, Sector-44, Noida on 23.01.2023. It has been submitted that the time lag in registries of both the properties was because of the timing of transfer permissions granted by the NOIDA Authority to the seller parties. The copies of the two registered deeds, in respect of the properties were submitted before the AO and have also been filed before me. Thus, to summarize, the sequence of events in respect of purchase of adjacent properties is tabulated as under:

Sr. No.	Plot No.	Purchased from	Total investment made	Date of initial investment made	Date of transfer permission granted by NOIDA Authority to seller	Date of registry
i)	9, Block-F Sector 44, Noida	Smt. Seema Sharma	13,91,36,537	02.05.2022- Rs.50 lacs 06.05.2022- Rs. 2 crores	12.07.2022	13.12.2022
ii)	8, Block-F, Sector-	M/s Spoorty Developers (P) Ltd.	12,09,26,384	02.05.2022- Rs.50 lacs	09.01.2023	23.01.2023

	44, Noida	through its authorized director Smt. Seema Sharma		06.05.2022-Rs. 2 crores
	Total		26,00,62,921

5.8.

The appellant has then submitted that after the registration of adjacent properties, the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority ("NOIDA") vide letter dated 13.4.2023 had amalgamated the two plots. The said amalgamation letter stated that this unit was to be treated as a single property and had prohibited their de-amalgamation again into two plots. The appellant has, therefore, submitted that consequent to the amalgamation ordered by the NOIDA under the abovesaid letter, the said authority had recognized the two properties as a single residential unit.

5.9.

The appellant has additionally relied upon an Architect's certificate dated 22.02.2025, wherein the architect has confirmed that F8 and F9, Sector 44, Noida are adjacent house properties, which stand amalgamated, vide order dated 13.04.2023 of the NOIDA. It has also confirmed that two properties have been interlinked/ joined for use as single house property. The appellant had also applied before NOIDA Authority for submission of complete drawing of property for their consideration, and thereafter, the NOIDA Authority had issued a Certificate dated 06.03.2025, wherein it was certified that the properties 'F-08 and F-09 Sector-44, Noida' were fit for occupation. All these documents had been filed before the AO by the appellant, which have also been filed before me.

5.10.

In the above factual background, it is undisputed that the two properties F-8, Sector 44, Noida and F-9, Sector 44, Noida, purchased by the appellant, were adjacent house properties, wherein the initial investment for purchase of both the properties were made by the appellant on the same day in May, 2022, wherein payment of Rs.2.50 crores for each subject property were made by the appellant. Thereafter, the property F-9, Sector 44, Noida was registered in the name of the appellant on 13.12.2022 and F-8, Sector 44, Noida was registered in the name of the appellant on 23.01.2023. It is also an undisputed fact that subsequent to the registries; the NOIDA Authority had amalgamated the two properties with a caveat that the same cannot be de-amalgamated again in future. Thus, prima facie, it appears that the appellant had purchased the two properties for use as a single residential property and, therefore, had made parallel initial investment in the two properties, in May, 2022. The two registries differed in dates only because of receipt of transfer permission by the seller from the NOIDA Authority on different dates, which led to delay in registration of the second residential property, namely, F-8, Sector 44, Noida by a month.

5.11.

As noticed supra, the Section 54F of the Act provides that on account of sale of any long term capital asset, not being a residential house, if the assessee purchases one residential house in India within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which transfer took place purchased or, within a period of three years after that date constructed one residential house in India, the capital gains proportionate to the sale consideration invested will be eligible for deduction under section 54F of the Act. Further, I also note that the term 'one residential house' was incorporated in section 54F of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2015. Prior to 01.04.2015, the section 54F provided deduction in respect of "a" residential house" which was substituted vide Finance Act (No.2), 2014 to insert 'one residential house'.

5.12.

In the present case, the reason for denying the benefit under section 54F of the Act by the AO is the treatment by him of the investment made by the appellant in properties F-8, Sector 44, Noida and F-9, Sector 44, Noida as investments in two house properties to invoke the provisions of the clause a(ii) of the proviso to sub section (1) of section 54 of the Act to thereby hold that the appellant was not entitled for the claim of exemption u/s 54F of the Act as against the case of the appellant to treat this investment to be in one residential house property.

5.13.

The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Gita Duggal [2013] 357 ITR 153 dealt with an akin issue. In this case, the assessee therein had purchased several independent residential units consisting of basement, ground floor, first floor & second floor and had claimed the same them a single unit to seek exemption u/s 54 of the Act. It had been denied by the AO. The CIT(A) had allowed the claim of the assessee, which was affirmed by the Tribunal. The revenue moved in appeal before the High Court. The High Court affirmed the decision of the Tribunal by interpreting and holding that there was nothing in the Sections 54/ 54F, which required the residential house to be constructed in a particular manner. The only requirement under the two provisions were that the same should be for the residential and not for the commercial use. There was nothing in the section, which required that the residential house should be built in a particular manner. The Income Tax authorities, consequently, could not insist upon such requirement. The court held that a person may construct a house according to his plans and requirement. Most of the houses are constructed according to the needs and requirements and even compulsions. It can be usefully extracted as under -

“9.

There could also be another angle. Section 54/54F uses the expression "a residential house". The expression used is not "a residential unit". This is a new concept introduced by the assessing officer into the section. Section 54/54F requires the assessee to acquire a "residential house" and so long as the assessee acquires a building, which may be constructed, for the sake of convenience, in such a manner as to consist of several units which can, if the need arises, be conveniently and independently used as an independent residence, the requirement of the Section should be taken to have been satisfied. There is nothing in these sections which require the residential house to be constructed in a particular manner. The only requirement is that it should be for the residential use and not for commercial use. If there is nothing in the section which requires that the residential house should be built in a particular manner, it seems to us that the income tax authorities cannot insist upon that requirement. A person may construct a house according to his plans and requirements. Most of the houses are constructed according to the needs and requirements and even compulsions. For instance, a person may construct a residential house in such a manner that he may use the ground floor for his own residence and let out the first floor having an independent entry so that his income is augmented. It is quite common to find such arrangements, particularly post-retirement. One may build a house consisting of four bedrooms (all in the same or different floors) in such a manner that an independent residential unit consisting of two or three bedrooms may be carved out with an independent entrance so that it can be let out. He may even arrange for his children and family to stay there, so that they are nearby, an arrangement which can be mutually supportive. He may construct his residence in such a manner that in case of a future need he may be able to dispose of a part thereof as an independent house. There may be several such considerations for a person while constructing a residential house. We are therefore, unable to see how or why the physical structuring of the new residential house, whether it is lateral or vertical, should come in the way of considering the building as a residential house. We do not think that the fact that the residential house consists of several independent units can be permitted to act as an impediment to the allowance of the deduction under Section 54/54F. It is neither expressly nor by necessary implication prohibited.

'19. It is clear from the above that separate floors of the singular house bearing the address D-6/5 Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, were purchased by the family members of the Assessee. The fact that different floors may be owned or partly owned would not detract from the fact that the portions owned were required to be considered 'one residential house'...

'25. The aforesaid decisions were rendered in the context of construing whether the new asset purchased is 'a residential house' - an expression used in Section 54 and 54F of the Act. However, the said decisions would be equally applicable for construing the term 'one residential house' as used in clause (i) of the proviso to Section 54F of the Act. We say so because in Pawan Arya (supra) as well as in Gita Duggal (supra) and Mrs Kamla Ajmera (supra), the term 'a residential house' has been construed to mean 'one residential house'. We find it difficult to accept that, in the given facts, different floors of a house are required to be considered as multiple residential houses.

26.

In view of the above, we find no infirmity with the decision of the learned ITAT in holding that the Assessee could not be denied the deduction under Section 54F of the Act on the ground that she holds more than one residential unit."

'7. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on records. There is no dispute to the facts of the case as discussed above. Therefore, we are not inclined to repeat the same for the sake of brevity. The issue in the present case relates whether the assessee is eligible for exemption under section 54F of the Act against the long-term capital gain for the investment made in the two properties which are adjacent to each other and used as one residential unit. Indeed, the provision of law requires that the exemption will be available to the assessee under section 54F of the Act for the investment in one residential unit.

7.1

Admittedly, there are 2 units bearing separate numbers which were purchased by the assessee out of the long-term capital gain income. Both the units are adjacent to each other and the same are used as single residential unit. Thus, the question arises, exemption provided under section 54F of the Act can be denied to the assessee merely on the ground that there were two registries of the properties. In our considered view, the answer stands in favour of the assessee in the present facts and circumstances. Under the provisions of the Act i.e. 54F of the Act, there is no definition/ clarification provided about the area of the residential property. It means, one assessee can buy huge bungalow/ property say thousand square meters and can claim the deduction subject to the conditions. Similarly, the other assessee on the other hand acquired two different residential properties adjacent to each other but both the properties put together has only two hundred square meters, but he will be extended the benefit of the exemption with respect to one unit only because of the reason that there are two different properties based on registry documents.

7.2

There can be a situation that the family of the assessee is quite large, comprising of several members in the family and therefore he needs two properties adjacent to each other to accommodate his family members. So, from the point of view of the assessee, it is single property, but he got two different properties registered as per the requirement of the builder. Thus, in our considered view, the assessee cannot be deprived of the benefit conferred under the statute merely on the reasoning that there were two different registries of the buildings/properties. It is also not a case of the revenue/ assessee that both the properties purchased by the assessee were located in different graphical area. In such a situation the law amended under section 54F of the Act appears to be applicable where the assessee buys two properties in two different areas.

7.3

Moreover, the principles laid down by the courts cannot be just brushed aside on the aspect of defining the one residential unit. In this regard we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT v. D. Ananda Basappa [2009] 180 Taxman 4/309 ITR 329 wherein it was held as under:...

7.4

In view of the above and after considering the facts in totality, we are of the view that the assessee is entitled for the exemption provided under section 54F of the Act in the present facts of circumstances. Hence, we set aside the finding of the learned CIT (A) and direct the AO to delete the addition made by him. Thus, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed."

“4.1.

Admittedly, there is no dispute regarding the purchase of both the houses by the assessee which is adjacent to each other. The only issue disputed by the revenue is that, the assessee purchased two houses under two independent agreements, and therefore the intention to treat it as one single unit is not satisfied. The revenue is also alleging that at the time of purchase, the assessee was already having a self-occupied property and thereby necessary conditions under section 54F also do not stands fulfilled. And the assessee’s case is that post purchase of the two flats, the revised plan was approved by MHADA wherein the two flats were considered as one single unit, with one kitchen and therefore the necessary criteria under section 54 F stands fulfilled.

4.2.

Before we go into the merits, it is necessary to understand the provisions and the intention of the legislature to bring in the amendment by way of Finance Act, 2014. The intention of the legislature to introduce the amendment was that investment should be made only in one residential house.

...

4.5.

Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT v. A. Suresh Rao [2014] 41 taxmann.com 475 (Karnataka) (MAG) considered similar situation wherein the significance of the expression “held” used by the legislature was analysed and explained in a great length. Further, Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Raman Kumar Suri [2013] 29 taxmann.com 231/212 Taxman 411 (Bombay) / 2012 (12 TMI 421) observed that, when two flats were joined together before the assessee became the owner of the two flats and certification from the society also establishes that the flats were joined together and were considered as one residential house, the Assessing Officer had to accept these facts and cannot disallow the claim merely because the flats were purchased by two separate agreements.

4.6.

So long as the house is used by the assessee as one single unit, though by conversion, in our view, the exemption cannot be denied to the assessee under section 54F of the Act. There is nothing on record brought by the revenue other than arguing that the assessee originally entered into two independent agreements for purchase of the flat. The impediment with the assessee at that stage was because, the builder originally got the plan approved as two separate units. The plan was subsequently revised, in order to suit the requirement of the assessee to use it as one single unit. The revised plan very categorically identifies one kitchen and other necessary structures, to be used as a single dwelling unit. The revised plan furnished by the assessee has not been opposed by the revenue with any contrary evidence. Thus, the conditions relevant for claiming deduction under section 54F is fully satisfied in the present facts of the case.

4.7.

At this juncture we refer to the Special Bench decision of this Tribunal in case of ITO v. Ms. Shushila M. Jhaveri reported in [2007] 107 ITD 327/ 14 SOT 394 (Mumbai), exemption under section 54 was held to be allowable only in case of purchase of a single house. Entire discussion revolved around interpretation of "a residential house" in section 54. It was had by the Tribunal as under:

"The word "a" means "any" which, in turn, means "many" or "more than one". According to various dictionary meanings, it also includes "one" or "one out of many". The word "any" may have several meanings according to the circumstances. It may mean "all", "each", "some" or "one or more out of several" but it is not confined to a plural sense. It may also be used to denote "one". So, both the words "a" and "any" are ambiguous and, therefore, the meaning of these words has to be seen with reference to the context in which these words are used." Further, it was held that "The word "any" has been used by the Legislature in sections 54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA and 54EB while as the word "a" has been used in sections 54 and 54F of the Act. This clearly shows that the Legislature intended different meanings to be given to these two words. A close reading of these sections shows that the Legislature intended to allow exemption in respect of investment in more than one asset by using the word "any".

4.8.

Hon'ble Special Bench in the above referred decision focused their discussion on the word "a" and held that exemption under section 54/54F would be available in respect of one house only. But where two houses joint together constitutes a single unit for residence, then exemption under section 54 would be available to such joint residential house. Hon'ble Special Bench, also noted that, where two units are distantly situated, then it could not constitute to be "a residential house" and, therefore, exemption under section 54 will be available only to one residential house at the option of the assessee.

4.9.

We, therefore, do not find any reason to dismiss the claim of the assessee based on surmises and conjectures of the authorities below. We direct the Ld.AO to grant complete deduction under section 54F as claimed by the assessee. Accordingly, ground 2 raised by the assessee stands allowed.”

12.

We find that the Ld AO considered the investment in seven residential units of the same complex; each unit being adjacent to other units, with no outsider flat coming in between as investment in multiple houses and applied the amendment effective from 01.04.2015 to invoke the concept of “one residential house” instead of “a residential house”. The AO and the CIT(A) held that the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Gita Duggal 357 ITR 153(Del) was not applicable, post above amendment.

13.

We find that the Hon’ble Delhi Court in the Lata Goel in ITA 127/225 vide its order dated 30.04.2025, referring its own decision in the case of Gita Duggal case [supra], had held that multiple residential units may be construed as a single residential house for the purposes of exemption u/s 54F of the Act and that the term ‘a residential house’ can be construed as ‘one residential house’. It would be pertinent to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi Court in the case of Lata Goel which is as under:

14.

Considering the facts of the case in totality, in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi Court [supra] where the term ‘a residential house’ has been construed to mean ‘one residential house’ and that different floors of the house do not mean multiple houses, we hold that “one residential house” in section 54/54F of the Act would encompass within its fold seven residential units on the same floor. Accordingly, we set aside the findings of the Id. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 1,86,36,599- and allow exemption u/s 54 of the Act on the seven residential units as claimed by the assessee. Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed."

3 That Now there is no remaining balance due by the TRANSFEREE to be paid to the Transferor aforesaid in connection with the said property.

For Spoorty Developers Pvt. Ltd. Director

MODE OF PAYMENTDATED	AMOUNT
RTGS/NEFT/IMPS 02-05-2022 UTR No UTIBR5202205020357938	Rs. 50,00,000/-
RTGS/NEFT/IMPS 06-05-2022 UTR No UTIBR5202205020357938 BOTH ARE DRAWN ON BANK OF BARODA BANK	Rs. 2,00,00,000/-
DIRECTLY PAID TO NOIDA AUTHORITY ON BEHALF OF TRANSFEROR	Rs. 5,05,00,000/-
TDS. Vide BSR Code No 00-00-2022 6360206 Challan Serial No 03075	Rs. 13,00,000/-
D.D No 153297 09-12-2022 DRAWN ON AXIS BANK	Rs. 5,32,00,000/-

========================= TOTAL Rs. 13,00,00,000/- =========================

3 That Now there is no remaining balance due by the TRANSFEREE to be paid to the Transferor aforesaid in connection with the said property.

TRANSFEROR SEEMA SHARMA TRANSFEREE RAHUL GARG

नवीन ओखला औद्योगिक विकास प्राधिकरण मुख्य प्रशासनिक भवन, सेक्टर-8, भोपाल, राजस्थान

दिनांक: 12/02/2025 15:26

Sh. Rahul Garg, S/o Sh. Shrikrishan Garg, R/o 1619, Sector-71, Faridabad, Haryana

विषय- आवासीय मुख्यालय सं० एफ-08 एवं एफ-09 सेक्टर 44, भोपाल के समामेलन के सम्बन्ध में। महोदय,

बताया आपने पत्र दिनांक 24.02.2023 को 03.03.2023 को संदर्भ ग्रहण करने का कार्य कर जिसके द्वारा आपने मुख्यालय सं० एफ-08 एवं एफ-09 सेक्टर 44, भोपाल का समामेलन किये जाने हेतु अनुरोध किया है।

उपरोक्त के सम्बन्ध में सूचित करना है कि आप द्वारा प्रस्तुत किये गये प्रस्तावों एवं नियोजन विभाग की आख्या के आधार पर निम्नलिखित शर्तों के तहत मुख्यालय सं० एफ-08 एवं एफ-09 सेक्टर 44 भोपाल का समामेलन किया जाना है।

1.

आवासीय मुख्यालय का समस्त कार्यालय एवं एफ-08/2023 भवन विनियमावली के अनुसार तथा सेंट वेक नियोजन विभाग द्वारा सेक्टर सेंट वेक भवन के अनुसार ही अनुमत्य किया जायेगा।

2.

इस मुख्यालय को एक ही मुख्यालय मानक मुख्यालय की किसी अनुमति प्रदान की जायेगी।

3.

समामेलन मुख्यालय को एक ही मुख्यालय माना जायेगा तथा किसी मुख्यालय की फोटो प्रदर्शित करने निम्नलिखित द्वारा होगा उस मुख्यालय के फोटो प्रदर्शित निम्नलिखित को लिखे न हों एवं समामेलन मुख्यालय पर भवन निर्माण हेतु अग्रिम समायुक्ति शुल्क की गणना की जायेगी।

4.

समामेलन के उपरान्त De-Amalgamation की अनुमति किसी भी दशा में प्रदान नहीं की जायेगी।

5.

भोपाल भवन विनियमावली 2010 तथा संबंधित के अध्याय 3 के उपरान्त सं० 24.1.20 में समामेलन के पश्चात मुख्यालय में अनुमत्य भू-आख्यायन एफ-08/2023 एवं सेंट वेक निम्नलिखित होंगे।

अनुमत्य भू-आख्यायन का प्रतिशत अनुमत्य एफ-08/2023 - 1.5 अग्र सेंट वेक - 6.00 मीटर पृष्ठ सेंट वेक - 3.00 मीटर साईड-1 सेंट वेक - 3.00 मीटर साईड-2 सेंट वेक - 3.00 मीटर

उपरोक्त के अतिरिक्त आवासीय/पहली प्रकोष्ठ/अनुमत्य प्रकोष्ठ की अन्य विभाग व शर्तें समायोजित रहेंगी। रहेगी।

उपरोक्त पत्र सक्षम अधिकारी के अनुमोदन/निर्धारण जारी किया जा रहा है।

सचिव सहायक अभियन्ता

प्रतिलिपि-

1.

वरिष्ठ प्रबंधक-नियोजन विभाग को सूचनार्थ।

2.

लेखाधिकारी-आत्मक को सूचनार्थ।

सचिव सचिवालय-भोपाल

T. R. SHARMA AND ASSOCIATES'S ARCHITECT, CONSULTANT ENGINEERS, SPECIAL INTERIOR DESIGN OFFICE:- 87/C-2, Sushant Lok, Phase-1, Guru gram. REGION NO.:- Moloon No. 2852, Sector 6, Faridabad Plot No. 7 & 8 3/4/25 Date: 24/2/2025

I, TEJRAM SHARMA, Architect by profession, holding certificate of practice number no. REGN. CA-46091 do hereby certify and confirm the following:

1.

That Mr Rahul Garg (PAN : AFIPG64976) had purchased two adjacent house properties F8 Sector 44, Noida and F 9 Sector 44, Noida through registered sale deeds.

2.

That Mr Rahul Garg thereafter immediately applied for amalgamation of the two residential properties into one residential house property and got approval from Noida Authority vide approval letter dated 13.4.2023 bearing reference number 2596

3.

That as per para 4 of approval letter for amalgamation of properties issued by Noida Authority dated 13.4.2023 bearing reference number 2596, the amalgamated property F8 & F9 sector 44, Noida cannot be de amalgamated after the amalgamation.

4.

That as para 5 of the approval letter for amalgamation of properties issued by Noida Authority dated 13.4.2023, the permissible coverage of land can be 60% and permissible F.A.R. can be 1.50.

5.

That Mr Rahul Garg has thereafter incurred further construction expenses and has interlinked/ joined the structure for use as one single house property

6.

That I have inspected the house property F8 & 9 Sector 44, Noida on 14.02.2025 and certify that the it is one single residential unit and is also evident from copy of drawing submitted before Noida Authority vide application reference no. 250217007 on 17.02.2025.

7.

That Mr Rahul Garg's residential unit at F8&9, Sector 44, Noida are in compliance of various applicable laws and Noida Building Regulations, 2010

Name of Architect: Tejram Sharma. Registration No. C/A. 46091 Signature of Architect.

T. R. SHARMA ARCHITECT REGN. No. CA-46091 Office: OFFICE:- 87/C-2, Sushant Lok, Phase-1, Guru gram. Email: [email protected], Mobile No. :- 9811221250, 9811694799.

New Okhla Industrial development Authority Main Administrative Building, Sector-06, Noida-201301, Uttar Pradesh

Completion Certificate

111

Date :- Mar 6 2025

From, The Chief Executive Officer New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Noida, Uttar Pradesh

To, MR RAHUL GARG F :- 08 09 , Sector:- 44 Ref No. :- 250217007 Council of Architecture Registration No. :- CA/2016/79773

I hereby certify that the erection/ re-erection/ alternation / demolization of building on plot number F - 08 09 in Sector 44, Noida completed under the supervision of Architect Name ASHOK KUMAR has been inspected by the officers of the Authority and declare that the building confirms in all respects to the requirements of the regulations in respect of occupancy. Structural safety based upon the structural stability certificate and the completion certificate submitted by the concerned Technical Person for fire safety hygienic and sanitary conditions inside and the surrounding and is fit for occupation.

This occupancy letter has been issued on the basis of the investigation done by the authority on Mar 6 2025 . If Allotee make any kind of change(s)/construction against Noida Building Regulation and Direction/Building Regulation after the date of Plot/building inspection then removal proceeding will be required against such construction under section 10 of U.P INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT ACT. In case of any expand in plot/building according to the rules of Noida Building Regulation and Direction/Building Regulation in future, separate map approval and occupancy letter as per the rules will be mandatory and its complete liability will be given to related allotee.

Note 1):Provision for car parking shall have to made inside the premises for allottee & Guest. 2):Under any Circumstances no vehicle parking shall be allowed on the adjoining road.

Plot Area : 900.00 Sq. Mtr. Permissible Ground Coverage : 540.00 Sq. Mtr. Permissible F.A.R. : 1350.00 Sq. Mtr. Existing Ground Coverage. : 307.03 Sq. Mtr. Existing F.A.R. : 307.03 Sq. Mtr. Existing Non F.A.R. : 0.00 Sq. Mtr. Existing Service Area : 0.00 Sq. Mtr. Total Built Up Area : 307.03 Sq. Mtr.