“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

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

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

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

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

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)

Sh. Jagmohan Singh, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 421/CHANDI/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

this regard, it would be relevant to refer to the provisions of Section 54 of the Act. Section 54(1) provides that where the assessee has constructed a residential house in India within a period of three years after the date of the transfer of the original asset ... defined, the assessee shall be eligible for deduction as per quantum so specified under clause (i) and (ii) of section 54(1). Section 54(2) provides that where the amount of capital gains is not utilized by him before the date of furnishing the return of income under section

Navin Surya, Worli, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 42(2)(1), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4772/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Hema Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

wherein it was held that the word (1979) 120 ITR page 46 (SC) wherein it was held that the word 'purchase' in section 54(1) had to be given a common meaning, that is, 'purchase' in section 54(1) had to be given a common meaning, that is, 'purchase ... section 54(1) had to be given a common meaning, that is, buying for a price or equivalent of a price on by payment in kind or buying for a price or equivalent of a price on by payment in kind or buying for a price or equivalent

Vidyavathi Manthravadi, United Kingdom vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(It and Tp), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 295/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.292/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year :2013-14) Sivakama Sundar Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1372 N Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.295/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Vidyavathi Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1370 Q Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessees By : Ms. P. Chandini, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 28/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

For Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54Section 54E

12/12/2012 which is before the completion of three years from February, 2011 and thereby concluded that the assessee has violated the provisions of section 54(1) of the Act. The Ld. CIT considered the sale as short term capital gains and consequently concluded that deduction claimed U/s. 54EC

Sivakama Sundar Manthravadi, United Kingdom vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(It and Tp), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 292/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2013-14

For Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54Section 54E

Sheela Ramchand Uttamchandani, Mumbai vs. ITO-30(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3398/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54

Court after analyzing the provisions of section 54 of the Act, observed as under: Sheela Ramchand Uttamchandani “The purpose behind the exemption under section 54(1) is that if any assessee sells his residential house and purchases a new house against those sale considerations, then capital gain tax arising ... gets it constructed by a contractor or 3rd party that does not make any difference. The basic requirement for purpose of relief under section 54(1) is that the assessee should invest the sale proceeds in the construction of residential house, which has been constructed for assessee.” 13. Thus

Rajib Chakraborty, Kolkata vs. ITO- Ward-30(3), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1279/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 253(3)Section 253(5)

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Sh. Narayanappa Ramanna, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 691/BANG/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2008-09 Acit, Vs. Shri Narayanappa Ramanna, Circle – 4(1)(1), 1 B, Narayanapur Village, Bengaluru. K. R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 016. Pan : Afmpr 3833 C Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri. Ganesh S, Advocate. Date Of Hearing : 16.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Ganesh S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

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

this court in the case of Smt. K. G. Rukminiamma (supra) dealt with the meaning of expression `a residential house' used in Section 54(1) of the Act while taking into account Section 132(2) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 held that unless there is anything repugnant ... different High Courts including this court and with a view to give definite meaning to the expression `a residential house', the provisions of section 54(1) were amended with an object to restrict the plurality to mean singularity by substituting the word `a residential house' with the word `one residential

Phillip Koshy, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-29, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 415/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.415/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Phillip Koshy, Dcit, C/O K B Chandna & Co., E-27, Vs. Central Circle-29, Ndse-Ii, Delhi. Delhi. Pan No. Armpk8500C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 234ASection 54

Page No. 22)- "23 It is not in dispute that the new residential house has been constructed within the time stipulated in Section 54(1) of the said Act. It is not a requisite of Section 54 that construction could not have commenced prior to the date of transfer ... 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

Keshav Kanungo, Bhopal vs. ACIT2(1) Bhopal, Bhopal

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

ITA 263/IND/2023[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Keshav Kanungo, Acit, Flat No. A-603, Circle-2(1), Virasha Heights, Bhopal बनाम/ Near Danish Bridge, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Abvpk 2942 F Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2024

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 4Section 54Section 54BSection 54ESection 54F

same is allowed as per the law assuming the investment in new asset was made within the prescribed time limit. The provisions of section 54(1)(proviso) comes in picture only when the investment in new asset is not made within the prescribed time limit. The facts of the case

Tarun Kumar Ratan Singh Rathi, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 32(1), Mumbai

ITA 2695/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

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

54 of the Act it is not necessary that Appellant should become the owner of the property purchased. The word purchase occurring in section 54(1) has to be given its common meaning that is buy for a price or equivalent of price by payment in kind or adjustment towards ... 54 of the Act it is not necessary that Appellant should become the owner of the property purchased. The word purchase occurring in section 54(1) has to be given its common meaning that is buy for a price or equivalent of price by payment in kind or adjustment towards

Sarita Gupta, Hapur vs. Pr, CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1174/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 268Section 54

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2(1)(1), Surat vs. Manish Sumatilal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 382/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) A.C.I.T., Manish Sumatilal Shah, Circle- 2(1)(1), 401, 4Th Floor, South Ridge Road, Vs. Surat. Mumbai-400006. Pan No. Adrps 1088 E Appellant/ Respondent Respondent/ Assessee

Section 254(1)Section 54F

Arun K Thiagraja Vs CIT (2020) 117 taxmann.com 270 (Kar) also held that for the purpose of allowing benefit of deduction under section 54(1), expression 'a residential house' includes within its ambit plural numbers as well and, thus, it cannot be construed as one residential house only. Andhra

Smt. Anjali Bhadoo, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 633/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anita Meena, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 54

this factual background, we do not find any cogent ground to hold that the respondents do not fulfil the conditions laid down under section 54(1) of the Act so as to deny the benefit of the said provision. The apprehension expressed by the learned senior standing counsel

DCIT- CC 6 (4), Mumbai vs. Divya Sameer Gehlaut, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is PARTLY ALLOWED

ITA 1612/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyaldcit Cen. Circle – 6(4), R. No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 ...... Appellant Vs. Smt. Divya Sameer Gehlaut 17Th Floor, Tower-1, India Bulls Finance Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400 013 Pan – Ajbpg2722R ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Om Kandalgaokar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 250Section 54Section 54F

partly the said amount deposited in the capital gain account for purchase or construction of new asset within the period specified under section 54(1), then the amount not so utilized shall be charged to capital gain tax in the previous year in which the period of 3 years from ... filing of return under section 139. Hence, when the new residential house was neither acquired or constructed within the time period prescribed under section 54(1), then the assessee is not eligible for deduction under section 54 and shifting of the assessment year for making the addition on this account

Kristina Nathabhai Krichchan, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(3), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 349/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.349/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Hearing) Kristina Nathabhai Krichchan, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-2(3), 2/4, Zankhana Apartment, Surat. 21 Narmad Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat – 395001. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Dwipk2888D Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) 10/05/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2023

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 54B

Apex Court in CIT v. T.N. Aravinda Reddy[1979] 120 ITR 461 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 res integra having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in CIT v. Podar Cement

Hemant Shridhar Phatak, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-35(1)(5) Presently-ITO-42(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 268/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.267 एवं 268 /मुं/2023 ("न.व. 2013-14)

For Appellant: S/Shri Devang Divecha &For Respondent: Shri Dinesh Chourasia, Sr.AR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 54(1)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “ एच ”,मुंबई "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अमरजीत "संह, लेखाकार

Hemant Shridhar Phatak, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-35(1)(5) Presently-ITO-42(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 267/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.267 एवं 268 /मुं/2023 ("न.व. 2013-14)

For Appellant: S/Shri Devang Divecha &For Respondent: Shri Dinesh Chourasia, Sr.AR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 54(1)

Smt. Kusumben Amritlal Sanghavi, Jamnagar vs. The DCIT, Circle, Jamnagar

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 194/RJT/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 194/Rjt/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Smt. Kusumben Amritlal Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Sanghavi Income Tax Vs. C/O. Kantilal & Circle-2, Jamnagar - Brothers, Grain Market, 361008 Jamnagar - 361001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afhps5412C .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri D. S. Varia, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 06/04/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 30/05/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.06.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jamnagar (‘The Cit(A)’), Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 30.06.2017 Passed By The Learned Dcit, Circle-2, Jamnagar Under Section

For Appellant: Shri D. S. Varia, A.R

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

would not be attracted in the event if the assessee has purchased or constructed the residential house within the period prescribed under section 54(1) of the Act. In the case in hand, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the assessee had purchased within two years

Farooq Abdulla Merchant, Mumbai vs. ITO 23 (1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, Ground No. V raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7906/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blefarooq Abdulla Merchant V. Income Tax Officer- Ward – 23(1)(4) Matru Mandir, Tardev Road A-1401, Poseidon Tower Mumbai – 400 007 Versova, Yari Road Above Indian Bank, Versova Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400061 Pan: Ahupm7426K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punamiya Department Represented By : Smt. Vranda U. Matkarni

Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54(1)

aforesaid definition nowhere specified one residential house, definitely we can invest in more than one residential house. Plain reading of the provision of section 54(1) of the Income Tax Act disclose that when an individual assessee or HUF-assessee sells a residential building or land appurtenant thereto ... Order - Assessment year 2005-06 - enclosed in Paper book Page Whether word a residential house t No. 133-152) as occurring in section 54(1) can include more than one or plural residential house - Held, yes Whether where assessee HUF sold its residential house and invested capital gain in purchasing

DCIT-27 (2), Mumbai vs. Shri Mitesh Balwantrai Kamdar, Mumbai

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

ITA 3120/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dcit-27(2) Shri Mitesh Balwantrai Kamdar Room No. 419, 9Th Floor, 801, Kalindi Neelkanthvalley, Vs. Rajawadi, 7Th Road, Ghatkoper (E), Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Station Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Mumbai-400 077 Pan/Gir No. Aadpk 0912 E (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bhadersh Doshi : Smt. Mahita Nair Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 08.03.2023 : 26.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Bhadersh Doshi

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54Section 54(1)Section 54(2)

right and domain over the property mentioned above. The assessee also contended that he has satisfied the condition as per the provision of section 54(1) of the Act and that the A.O. has erroneously denied exemption of Rs.3,34,25,633/- u/s. 54