DESIRAZU SUNDARA SIVA RAO,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BENGALURU
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the AO was justified in examining the Section 54F exemption even in a limited scrutiny case. However, the Tribunal found that the plea that the units received under the JDA should be considered as one residential house was not taken before the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.
What were the facts?
The assessees claimed exemption under Section 54F for capital gains arising from a Joint Development Agreement (JDA). The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the exemption, arguing that the JDA entitled the assessees to more than one residential house, violating the proviso to Section 54F(1). The assessees contended that the units received should be considered as one residential house.
What were the issues?
Whether the AO exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny by examining the Section 54F exemption and whether the units received under a JDA constitute a single residential house for the purpose of Section 54F.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT5,834 citing229 ITR 283 · 1998 · SC
- CIT v. D. Ananda Basappa97 citing309 ITR 329 · 2009 · HC
- CIT v. Gumanmal Jain46 citing394 ITR 666 · 2017 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN & MS. S.PADMAVATHI
Per N. V. Vasudevan, Vice President :
ITA No.449/Bang/2021 is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 26.07.2021 of the NFAC, Delhi, relating the Assessment Year 2015-
ITA No.633/Bang/2021 is also an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 29.09.2022 of the NFAC, Delhi, relating the Assessment Year
ITA Nos.449, 633/Bang/2021 SP No. 111/Bang/2021 (i
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Nagaraj Desirazu, Bengaluru vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…Bangalore24 Jun 2022Remanded
Also relies on CIT v. Gumanmal Jain and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the AO was justified in examining the Section 54F exemption even in a limited scrutiny case. However, the Tribunal found that the plea that the units received under the JDA should be considered as ...
- Jyoti Jain, New Delhi vs DCIT, Circle-19(2), New DelhiDelhi23 Sept 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Gumanmal Jain and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that different floors of a single residential house cannot be considered as separate residential units for the purpose of Section 54F. The issue of cost of construction was restored to the CIT(A) for fr...
- Kirthisimhan Wijeyanayake, Coimbatore vs ACIT Non Corporate Circle 2, CoimbatoreChennai6 Dec 2022Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Gumanmal Jain and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 54F for all 7 flats, as the delay in possession was beyond the assessee's control and the flats were acquired from a single development agreemen...
- Shri. P. Krishna Reddy, Bangalore vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…Bangalore3 Feb 2022Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Gumanmal Jain and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 54F for one residential house, as per the amended provisions applicable from AY 2015-16. The proviso to Section 54F, which excludes ownersh...
- Fazelaazhar, Ooty vs ACIT Circle-1, OotyChennai25 Jan 2022Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Gumanmal Jain and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 54F by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, is prospective, not retrospective. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for deduction on both residential units purchased.
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
