RAJEEV JAIN,MEERUT vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2, MEERUT
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the entire capital gains invested in the new property, including amounts paid from loans and for finishing work, are eligible for deduction under Section 54F. The CIT(A) erred in restricting the deduction based on the source of funds or specific expense categories.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a salaried individual, sold a residential plot and claimed deduction under Section 54F for investing in a new house property. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction, and the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, disallowing a portion of the deduction related to loan-funded investment and finishing work.
What were the issues?
Whether investment in a new asset funded by a loan or for finishing work is eligible for deduction under Section 54F. The interpretation of 'amount of capital gains' invested in the acquisition of a new property.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Kul BharatDr. B. R. R. Kumar
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), Meerut dated 31.08.2015 and 19.11.2015.
The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee is a salaried person working in PSU Power Corporation Ltd. and derived income from salary, capital gains and income from other sources.
The assessee has sold a residential plot situated at Indirapuram for a consideration of Rs.90,00,000/- and shown Rajeev Jain capital gain of Rs.77,57,239/- and claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs.66,37,503/- by making investment in house property amounting to Rs.76,28,144/-. The AO disallowed the deduction u/s 54F on the amount which the first owner paid to the builder disregarding the fact that the amount paid by the assessee includes the total value of the asset.
The ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition made by the AO but at the same time held that out of the amount invested in the new property, an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- has been paid by the assessee from the loan taken from HDFC and hence the amount paid for acquisition of new asset out of the loan cannot be eligible for deduction u/s 54F. The ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the same amount which was received by sale of property should be invested in acquisition of new property. In this case, the entire capital gains have been invested in the acquisition of new property. What is to be seen is, as to whether the “amount of capital gains” acquired by the assessee has been invested in the acquisition of new property or not but not whether the “same amount” is utilized or not. The ld. CIT(A) erred in viewing the issue myopically.
With regard to the disallowance of Rs.2,00,000/- which was invested in finishing work of the flat and an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- which was withdrawn from capital gains deposit account to meet the registration expenses of the new property was disallowed by the ld. CIT(A). On going through the details filed with regard to finishing work of the flat, the date of sale of old asset and date of purchase of new flat, we hold that the Rajeev Jain amount utilized is rightly eligible for deduction u/s 54F of the Act.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Since, the matter has been adjudicated on merits in the which has been filed by the assessee involving the same issue is liable to be dismissed as infructuous.
In the result, the appeal in is allowed and the appeal in is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 30/12/2021.
More judgments on Section 54F
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Ramakrishna Reddy Makireddy, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-5(1), HyderabadITA 70/HYD/2026[2007-08]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2007-08
- Nand Kishore Agarwal, Hyderabad vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(3), Hyderabad.ITA 2101/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Jaipal Jona, Hyderabad vs DCIT, Central Circle-3(3), HyderabadITA 1889/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Renu Arun Talwar, Mumbai vs Circle 17(1), MumbaiITA 204/MUM/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Sri Bhuvaneshwari And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Giri Paints vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Rahul Radheshyam Chauhan vs. Union Of INDIA Thru The Sec. Ministry Of Law And Justice And OrsBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- S.Murugesan vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026