DINESH N. BHANUSHALI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 24(1)(5), MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the AO for fresh examination. This was based on a Supreme Court decision that remitted a similar issue for de novo examination.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed deduction under Section 54F for purchasing a residential flat after selling a shop. The AO disallowed the deduction because the unutilized sale proceeds were not deposited in the Capital Gains Account Scheme within the prescribed time limit.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 54F when unutilized sale proceeds were not deposited in the Capital Gains Account Scheme within the stipulated time.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)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.
- Humayun Suleman Merchant v. CCIT41 citing73 Taxmann.com 2 · 2016 · HC
- Xavier J. Pulikkal v. Dy. CIT5 citing73 Taxmann.com 34 · 2016 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran
Per B.R. Baskaran, Accountant Member
The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 05- 02-2018 passed by Ld CIT(A)-36, Mumbai and it relates to the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in confirming disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 54F of the Act.
I heard the parties and perused the record. The assessee sold a shop for a consideration of Rs.45.00 lakhs and worked out capital gain thereon at Rs.36.97 lakhs. The assessee purchased a residential flat and accordingly claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act. The AO noticed that the new residential flat was purchased after the expiry of time limit prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act, in which case, the assessee should have deposited money in Capital gains Account Scheme. However, the assessee had deposited money in fixed deposits. Since the assessee did not deposit money in capital gains account scheme, the AO rejected the claim for deduction u/s 54F of the Act. The Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the same by following the decision rendered by Hon’ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Humayun Suleman Merchant vs. CIT (2016)(73 taxmann.com 2).
The Ld A.R submitted that the Hon’ble Kerala High Court had also taken the view in the case of Xavier J Pulikkal that the deduction u/s 54/54F is not available if the unutilised funds were not deposited in Capital gains Scheme. When the matter reached Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Hon’ble Apex court, in the very same case reported in (2016) 73 taxmann.com 34, has restored the issue to the file of the AO for examining the issue denova without being influenced by any observations made by Hon’ble High Court. The Ld A.R submitted that the Mumbai bench of ITAT has followed the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court and restored an identical issue to the file of the AO for examining it afresh in the case of ACIT vs. Shri Ramakant M Kadam (ITA No.4514/Mum/2014 dated 05-04-2018).
I heard Ld D.R and perused the record. In view of the foregoing, I set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and restore the issue to the file of the AO with the direction to examine the issue afresh in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced on 18-07-2019
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 →- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026