54F of the Act. 5. In Amit Gupta v. DCIT

6 SOT 403Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#11731 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 139 Section 45 Section 54B Section 54F

Issues it is cited on

long-term capital asset section 54f section 54 long term capital gain person business india total income document

Judgments citing 54F of the Act. 5. In Amit Gupta v. DCIT

Kumar Madhavanpillai.S, Thiruvananthapuram vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 461/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Kumar Madhavanpillai S. Income Tax Officer -1(4) Chandra Press & Book Depot Aayakar Bhavan, Kowdiar P.O. Manjalikulam Road Thiruvananthapuram 695003 Vs. Thampanoor Thiruvananthapuram 695001 [Pan: Ajxps9299P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. D.R

Section 50Section 54

…assessee that such property has been used for the storage of the household items. Likewise, the property was also not rented out to any 3rd party for the commercial purposes. We also note that Delhi Tribunal in the case of Shri Amit Gupta Vs. DCIT reported in 6 SOT 403 has decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee by observing as under: 7. The requirement of law is that the property should be a residential house. The expression residential house has not been defined in the Act. The popular meaning of the word is a place or building used for habitation of people. It is used in contradistinction to a p…

ACIT Circle-36(1), New Delhi vs. Himanshu Garg, New Delhi

ITA 819/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Niraj Jain, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Vivek K. Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 54BSection 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Kul Bharat, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 819/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 ACIT, Vs. Sh. Himanshu Garg, Circle-36(1), C-1/16, Corner Building, New Delhi Model Town-3, New Delhi-110009 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AZTPG3600N CO No. 112/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Sh. Himanshu Garg, Vs. ACIT, C-1/16, Corner Building, Circle-36(1), Model Town-3, New Delhi New Delhi-110009 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AZTPG3600N Assessee by : Sh. Niraj Jain, CA & Sh. P. K. Mishra, CA Revenue by : Sh. Vivek K. U…

Sampat Lal Lodha, Nathdwara vs. ITO, Ward-2, Rajsamand

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2/JODH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR VIRTUAL HEARING BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM ITA Nos. 1 & 2/Jodh/2022 (ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2010-11 & 2011-12) Sampat Lal Lodha Vs Income Tax Gandhi Road, Officer, Nathdwara Ward-02, Rajsamand (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. AATPL 6272 A Assessee By Sh. Mukul Moondra, C.A. Revenue By Sh. S. M. Joshi, JCIT-DR Date of hearing 04/07/2023 Date of 02/08/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM These are two appeals filed by the assessee and is directed against the order of the National Face…

Sampat Lal Lodha, Nathdwara vs. ITO, Ward-2, Rajsamand

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1/JODH/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

ITO, W-4, Panchkula vs. Smt. Seema Bishnoi, Panchkula

In the result appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 103/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargthe Ito Vs. Smt. Seema Bishnoi Ward-4, Panchkula H.No. 906, Sec-08, Panchkula

For Appellant: Shri. A.K. Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri. G.S. Phani Kishore, CI TDR

Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

…Even otherwise for claiming the exemption u/s.54F it is not the condition that the assessee should reside in the house which she purchased. The same view was held by the Hon'ble IT ATDelhi Bench in the case of Amit Gupta v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, 6 SOT 403, on which the appellant placed its reliance. It was held that: "The requirement of section 54F is that the property should be a residential house. The expression 'residential house' has not been defined in the Act. The popular meaning of the word is a place or building used for habitation of people. It is used in contradistinction to a place which…

Income Tax Officer, Bangalore vs. Shri. Somchand Kanji, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1717/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri. Jason P Boazthe Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-5(2)(2), Bangalore. .Appellant Vs. Shri Somchand Kanji, (Rept. By Hiten Somchand Ladhad) No.43, 2Nd Main Road, New Tharagupet, Bangalore. . Respondent Pan – Aezpk 6069E. Appellant By : Shri B.R Ramesh, Jcit Respondent By : Shri G.S Prashanth, C.A Date Of Hearing : 26-04-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 2-05-2018

For Appellant: Shri B.R Ramesh, JCITFor Respondent: Shri G.S Prashanth, C.A

Section 260ASection 54Section 54F

…. The CIT(A) also found that the description of the property as mentioned in the sale deed was site with 100 sq ft AC sheet shed and not just a vacant land. The CIT(A) found that in a decision of the Hon’ble Dehi ITAT in the case of Amit Gupta Vs. DCIT (2006) 6 SOT 403 (Delhi) the Tribunal took the view that to claim deduction u/s.54F of the Act, it is not a condition that some person should reside in a property to call it residential ITA No.1717/B/16 4 house and that it was enough if the property was capable of being used as a residential house and need not be actually used as a residence. The CIT(A) also fou…

A.M.Subramanian, Madurai vs. DCIT, Madurai

In the result the assessee’s appeal is allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 860/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Respondent: Shri S. Mohd. Mustafa, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 54F

…o be granted on the entire value of the building constructed. He further relied in the decision of various judicial authorities cited herein below:- (1) Mahavir Prasad Gupta V. JCIT in [2006] 5 SOT 353 (Delhi) – Delhi Tribunal (2) Amit Gupta V. DCIT in [2006] 6 SOT 403 (Delhi) (3) Shyamala Tandon V. Income Tax Officer in [2014] 43 taxmann.com 155 (Hyderabad – Trib.) (4) K. Pratibha V. ITO in [2014] 45 taxmann.com 282 (Hyderabad – Trib.) (5) N. Revathi V. ITO in [2014] 45 taxmann.com 30 (Hyderabad – Trib.) He therefore pleaded that the addition made by the Ld.AO by denying the benefit of deduction U/s. 54F of th…

ACIT, Madurai vs. A.M.Subramanian, Madurai

In the result the assessee’s appeal is allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1196/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Respondent: Shri S. Mohd. Mustafa, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 54F

Manoj Kumar Sabharwal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 5(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3930/DEL/2017[20102-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2017

Bench: Sh. N.K.Saini & Sh.K.N.Charymanoj Kumar Sabharwal, Vs Ito, A-1, G.T.Karnal Road, Industrial Ward-5(3), Area, Delhi-110033. C.R.Building, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 54

…area for guarding purposes. First of all, whatever may be the use the structure is put to, relevant question is whether it is useful for the purpose of dwelling, whether by the assessee or his guards. In view of the decisions reported in Amit Gupta vs DCIT 6 SOT 403 (Del.); Smt. Pushpalata Kanodia vs WTO 92 ITD 500 (Hyd) wherein it is held that in order to certify that a house is fit for human habitation, it is not necessary that there should be of modern amenities that are required for posh and luxurious living or that the assessee should reside therein. It is further held that the term “house” commonly mea…