← All Phrases

“Section 54(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 54Section 54(1)79 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 54(1) is Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT (239 ITR 775), cited in 215 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 54(1)

Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT
239 ITR 775 · 1999 · Supreme Court
215
citing judgments

For income tax purposes, the 'owner' of a property is the person who is entitled to receive income in their own right, bears the risks incidental to ownership, and utilizes the asset, even if the sale deed is not formally registered. This beneficial ownership is sufficient for claiming depreciation or capital gains exemption under relevant sections.

CIT v. Manjula J. Shah
355 ITR 474 · 2013 · High Court
113
citing judgments

For capital assets acquired by gift or will, the indexed cost of acquisition under Section 48 is computed with reference to the year the previous owner first held the asset. The period of holding for determining if an asset is long-term also includes the previous owner's holding period, as per Section 2(42A).

CIT v. K.G. Rukminiamma
331 ITR 211 · 2011 · High Court
104
citing judgments

For capital gains exemption under Sections 54 and 54F of the Income Tax Act (prior to the 2015 amendment), the expression "a residential house" includes multiple residential units and should not be construed in the singular, by applying Section 13 of the General Clauses Act.

CIT v. D. Ananda Basappa
309 ITR 329 · 2009 · High Court
97
citing judgments

For exemption under Section 54, the expression 'a residential house' allows for investment in multiple residential units that form one functional unit, as 'a' does not imply a singular number. The amendment to Section 54, effective from April 1, 2015, is prospective.

CIT v. Gita Duggal
357 ITR 153 · 2013 · High Court
77
citing judgments

For capital gains exemption under sections 54 and 54F, the term "a residential house" does not restrict the exemption to a single residential unit and can include multiple contiguous or combined residential units treated as one house.

CIT v. Kamal Wahal
351 ITR 4 · 2013 · High Court
71
citing judgments

An assessee is eligible for capital gains exemption under Sections 54 and 54F even when the new residential house is purchased in the name of their spouse, provided the investment comes from the assessee's own funds. This allows for a purposive construction of these provisions.

CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Jalan
286 ITR 274 · 2006 · High Court
66
citing judgments

Section 139(4) of the Income-tax Act, which allows for filing a belated return, acts as a proviso to Section 139(1). Consequently, the time limit for depositing amounts or utilizing funds to claim exemptions, such as under Section 54, extends up to the due date for filing a return under Section 139(4).

CIT v. Gurnam Singh
327 ITR 278 · 2010 · High Court
66
citing judgments

For capital gains exemption under Section 54F, the new residential house is not required to be purchased exclusively in the assessee's own name; acquisition in joint names or in the name of a spouse qualifies for the exemption. This principle also applies to Section 54 due to their pari materia nature.

Judgments citing Section 54(1)

ITO Ward-53(3), New Delhi vs. Anju Madhan, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9321/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 53ASection 54

Court in C/T v. Τ.Ν. Aravinda Reddy (1979) 120 TR 46' where it has been held that the word 'purchase' occurring in section 54(1) of the Act had to be given its common meaning, viz., buy for a price or equivalent of price by payment in kind ... transferee, the assessee, "purchased" the share of each of his brothers and the assessee was, therefore, entitled to the relief under section 54(1). The question now is no longer rea integra having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in CIT v. Podar Cement

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2 1 1, Ahmedabad vs. Bharat Lakhaji Nandwana, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1366/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. & Ms. UktiFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. & Ms. Ukti
Section 49Section 54Section 54E

such as final conveyance deed or registered purchase deed evidencing the actual purchase of the residential property has been placed on record. 24. Section 54(1) of the Act provides that: where the capital gain arises from transfer of a long-term capital asset being a residential house

Romaben Keyur Thakore Legal Heir of Late Anandiben Jitendrabhai Shah, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2605/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: The Ld.Cit(A), Who Has Confirmed The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer By Observing As Follows:

Section 144Section 148Section 54F

held that not only cost of construction of new property incurred after sale of old property would be eligible for exemption under section 54(1), but also cost to land on which new property was constructed, even if such land had been purchased three years prior to sale ... property, by observation as follows: “…22. It is axiomatic that Section 54(1) of the said Act does not contemplate that the same money received from the sale of a residential house should be used in the acquisition of new residential house. Had it been the intention of the Legislature

Zafar Iqbal, Siliguri vs. DCIT, Circle - 1, Siliguri

ITA 1170/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 54F

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

Azizul Ghani, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer - ITO Ward 63(3) New Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2962/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarazizul Ghani Vs. Ito, Ward 63(3) 1407 Pan Mandi E-2, Block, Civic Centre, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi – 110002 Delhi – 110006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aajpg7737K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54

adjusted and/or set off against the capital gain is, the cost of the residential house that is purchased or constructed. Section 54(1) of the said Act is specific and clear. It is the cost of the new residential house and not just the cost of construction ... construction, the cost of labour and any other cost relatable to the acquisition and/or construction of the residential house. 21. A reading of Section 54(1) makes it amply clear that capital gain is to be adjusted against the cost of new residential house. The condition precedent for such adjustment

Ranajit Suresh Rajamane, Solapur vs. ITO, Ward 1, Pandharpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1678/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1678/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ranajit Suresh Rajamane, Vs Ito Ward 1, Shukrawar Peth, Pandharpur Tembhurni Madha Solapur- 413211 Maharashtra Pan-Bmepr3878N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54Section 548Section 54BSection 54B(1)Section 69A

sell. In the case of ‘TR Ardvinda Reddy’ (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting the word 'purchase' referred to in section 54(1) of the Act held that the ordinary meaning of the word 'Purchase as buying for price or equivalent of price by payment in kind ... other monetary consideration and that there was no reason to divorce this ordinary meaning from the legal meaning of the word in section 54(1) of the Income Tax Act. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been further followed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court

Saroj Goenka, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 30(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2129/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 54F

adjusted and/or set off against the capital gain is, the cost of the residential house that is purchased or constructed. Section 54(1) of the said Act is specific and clear. It is the cost of the new residential house and not just the cost of construction ... construction, the cost of labour and any other cost relatable to the acquisition and/or construction of the residential house. 21. A reading of Section 54(1) makes it amply clear that capital gain is to be adjusted against the cost of new residential house. The condition precedent for such adjustment

Nitin Bhatia, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-12(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1472/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1472/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Nitin Bhatia Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 12 (1) Pan:Akqpb1898R Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Y.V Bhanu Narayan Rao राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: CA Y.V Bhanu Narayan RaoFor Respondent: : Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54(1)Section 54(2)

Nitin Bhatia new residential property within two years from the date of transfer of the original residential house, the substantive condition under section 54(1) of the Act stood fully complied with and that the denial of deduction of Rs. 22,51,617/- was solely on account of non-deposit ... submitted that section 54(2) of the Act is only procedural and directory in nature and cannot override the substantive provision contained in section 54(1). In support, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Venkata Dilip Kumar

Shaziya Moazzam Ali Khan, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (A), Mumbai

ITA 6302/MUM/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Shaziya Moazzam Ali Khan The Cit(A), Ward Flat No. 71, A Wing, St 19(3)(1), Piramal Andrew Apartment, Moraland Vs. Chamber, Parel Road, Mumbai-400 008. Mumbai-400 012. Pan : Amnpk2105R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RaiFor Respondent: Shri Amir H. Bohra, CA
Section 250Section 54Section 54(1)Section 54(2)Section 54(4)Section 54F(1)Section 54F(4)

residential house in India. Ld. CIT(A) held that the contention of appellant is not acceptable in view of the mandatory requirement of section 54(1) of the Act i.e., the amount was not invested within three years. 2. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A) rejecting the contention

Nemi Chand, Gudur vs. ITO., Ward-1, Gudur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1288/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1288/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Nemi Chand, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1-2-8/11A, 302, 3Rd Floor, Ward-1, Srinivas Street No.1, Guduru. Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana. Pan: Achpr2242L (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Sridhar Jhawar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 26/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 13/06/2025 Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 23/04/2021 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Has 2 Nemi Chand Vs. Ito Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us: 1. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Whether The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Was Pervasive In Considering The Income From Capital Gains As Business Income In Terms Of Provisions Of Section 2(14) Read With Section 2(47) 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law. Whare Capital Gain Was Invested In Purchase/Construction Of Residential House Within Time Limit Prescribed Under Section 2 54(1), Assessment Order Allowing Assesses Claim Under Section 54 Could Not Be Treated As Erroneous & Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue Only Because Capital Gain Was Not Deposited In Capital Gain Account Scheme. 3. Any Other Ground (If Any) That May Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sri Sridhar Jhawar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 54

sale consideration was not deposited in Capital Gain Account Scheme, the investment made in the residential houser was entitled for deduction under section 54(1) of the Act. 15. Per contra, Dr. Sachin Kumar, the Learned Senior Departmental Representative (for short, “Ld. Sr. DR”) relied upon the orders

Poonam Dhananjay Sandu, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee partly allowed

ITA 2050/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Girish Agrawal, ()

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 270A(3)Section 270A(9)Section 54

Transfer as right in personam has been created in favour of the purchaser and hence section 54 is to be allowed :- 5. Under Section 54(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: "... where the capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset, being a residential house

Ram Niranjan Banka, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 40, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 752/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ram Niranjan Banka Acit, Circle-40 1, Surti Bagan Street, Jorasanko, 3, Govt. Place (West), Vs. Kolkata-700073, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aedpb5273P Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 54(1)(ii)

same as part of “New Asset” allotted to the assessee under the Development Agreement and computed gain as short term capital gain, applying section 54(1)(ii) of the Act. 3.4. The Ld. AO in his order observed that The possession of the building had already been handed over ... assessee in this regard cannot be accepted for the purpose of computation of capital gains as this is against the provisions of section 54(1)(ii) of the Act. The provision talks about ‘new asset’. In the present case, the flat in question is the ‘new asset’. Hence

Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore, Mahalkshmipuram vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Intl, Taxation 1(2) Bangalore, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.258/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore 87, 2Nd Stage & Phase Mahalakshmipuram 2Nd Stage, 14Th Main, West Of Chord Ito Road Vs. Ward International Taxation 1(2) Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore Bangalore 560 086 Pan No :Blrpn0428A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.R. Respondent By : Dr. Divya K.J., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J., D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 54Section 54(2)Section 80T

payment in kind or adjustment towards an old debt or for other monetary consideration from the legal meaning of that word in section 54(1). If you sell your house and make a profit, pay Caesar what is due to him. But if you buy or build another subject ... conditions of section 54(1) you are exempt. The purpose is plain ; the symmetry is simple, the language is plain. Why mutilate the meaning by lexical legalism. We see no stress in the section on "cash and carry." ……….” 7.4 The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case

Navjyoti Sharma, Bangalore vs. DCIT Asmnt, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 235/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Varadarajan D.P., A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J., D.R
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 45Section 54

payment in kind or adjustment towards an old debt or for other monetary consideration from the legal meaning of that word in section 54(1). If you sell your house and make a profit, pay Caesar what is due to him. But if you buy or build another subject ... conditions of section 54(1) you are exempt. The purpose is plain ; the symmetry is simple, the language is plain. Why mutilate the meaning by lexical legalism. We see no stress in the section on "cash and carry." ……….” 7.4 The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case

Shri Inamul Haq, Saharanpur vs. ITO, Saharanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3300/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Inamul Haq S/O Sh. Mohd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Yamin, Vill.Megh Chhappar, Ward-2. Ambalaa Road, Saharanpur (U.P) Saharanpur Pan: Aaiph2840K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 50CSection 54Section 54FSection 54F(4)

regarding the investment in the name of his son, should be allowed, in view of the aforesaid jurisdictional precedence. (iv) That, as per section 54(1), the assessee should invest, "a residential house", cannot be read as one residential house and also it cannot be restricted, that, two houses

Krishnamoorthy Vijayaraghavan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-5(1), Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1976/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1976/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Krishnamoorthy The Income Tax Officer, Vijayaraghavan, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 5(1), 2A, Tulive Antara, Chennai. Old No.4, New No.9, Karpagambal Nagar, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. Pan: Acppv 0131J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 54Section 54(2)

other hand, it has to verify as to whether the said sum was utilised by the petitioner within the time stipulated under Section 54(1) for the purpose of construction. If it is found that such utilisation was made within such time, the Revenue is bound to grant deduction. Therefore ... amount, claimed by the assessee as deduction, has been utilised by the petitioner towards the additional construction within the time limit prescribing under Section 54(1) and thereafter, to pass fresh order accordingly in the light of the findings and observations rendered supra. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed

Avanasiyappan Eswaran, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Tiruppur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1666/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramachandran, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 50CSection 54FSection 54F(4)

other hand, it has to verify as to whether the said sum was utilised by the petitioner within the time stipulated under Section 54(1) for the purpose of construction. If it is found that such utilisation was made within such time, the Revenue is bound to grant deduction. Therefore ... amount, claimed by the assessee as deduction, has been utilised by the petitioner towards the additional construction within the time limit prescribing under Section 54(1) and thereafter, to pass fresh order accordingly in the light of the findings and observations rendered supra. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed

DCIT., (International Taxation)-1, Hyderabad vs. Syama Reddy Mali Reddy, Hyderabad

ITA 366/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Sept 2025AY 2019-20
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 54Section 54F

equivalent of price by payment in kind or adjustment towards an old debt or for other monetary consideration from its legal meaning in section 54(1) of the Income Tax Act If you sell your house and make a profit, pay Caesar what ... build another subject to the conditions of section 54(1) you are exempt. Further reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional ITAT in the case of Pradeep Kumar Chowdhry Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1 (1), Hyderabad (2015) 55 taxmann.com 81 (Hyderabad Trib.) adjudicating based

Shri Kingshuk Ghoshal, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-6(5), Lucknow

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 200/LKW/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Kinghshuk Ghoshal V. The Ito 6(5) E-402, Halwasiya Utsav Enclave Lucknow Opposite Hal, Faizabad Road Lucknow Tan/Pan:Affpg3258L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 26.12.2017, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Lucknow-3 (Ld. Cit(A)) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.11.2012, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,05,233/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Noticed That The Assessee Was Earning Interest Income From Saving Bank Deposits & Fdrs & That The Assessee Had Claimed Exemption Of Rs.71,54,619/- Under Section 54 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’). During The

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45Section 54Section 80E

assessee. At this juncture, I observe that section 54 of the Act is enacted in order to promote purchase/construction of residential houses. Section 54(1) of the Act is a substantive provision. Section 54(2) of the Act is an enabling provision, which provides that assessee should deposit the amount ... particular scheme whether that is fulfilled or not should not destroy the ultimate bona-fide intention of the assessee as enshrined in section 54(1) of the Act. The procedural and enabling provision of sub-section (2) of section 54 of the Act cannot be strictly construed to impose strict

Goverdhan Lal Yadav, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer-3(5), Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 854/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year : 2015-16 Goverdhan Lal Yadav, Ito-3(5) 112/12, Nanda Nagar, Indore बनाम/ Opp. Anoop Takies, Vs. Indore (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Aaypy9432A Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.07.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 253(5)Section 54B

assessee and also the fact that such capital gain was invested in purchase/construction of residential house within the time limit prescribed under section 54(1) of the Act. Only because the capital gain was not deposited in the capital gain account scheme, the revisionary authority has treated the assessment order ... Revenue. In our view, learned PCIT has adopted a hyper-technical approach while dealing with the issue. When the basic conditions of section 54(1) has been satisfied, in our view, the assessee remains entitled to claim the deduction under section 54 of the Act. In any case