“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)

Anu Gera, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Accordingly Ground No. 3 of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2626/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D. R

Section 143(1)Section 45Section 54

interpreting the expression 'a residential house. Therefore, the contention of the revenue that the assessee is not entitled to benefit of exemption under Section 54(1) of the Act in the facts of the case does not deserve acceptance." 12. In the case of Tilokchand & Sons vs. ITO (2019) reported

Dineshbhai Jivanbhai Sanspara, Surat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 435/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.435/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Dineshbhai Jivanbhai Sanspara The Principal Commissioner Of Income 1117,F-Tower, Green Avenue, Tax-1, Room No.123, Aayakar Vs. Union Park Gali Ghod Dod Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Road, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adaps 6038 H अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""थ" / Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44ASection 54

Court has observed in the case of CIT vs. Bharati C Kothari 160 CTR 165 (Cal) that: “The purpose behind the exemption under section 54(1) is that if any assessee sales his residential house and purchase a new house against those sale consideration, the capital gains arising ... gets it constructed by a contractor or third party does not make any difference. The basic requirement for the 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 the assessee. “Here

P. Ananthram, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Non-Corporate Circle-2, Combatore Main Building, 63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 155/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.155/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 P. Ananth Ram, The Asst. Commissioner Of 36, West Venkataswamy Road, Vs. Income Tax, R.S. Puram, Non Corporate Circle-2, Coimbtore – 641 002. Coimbatore. [Pan: Anxpa-6262-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

assessee towards the purchase of the new asset or purchase and construction of the new asset before the date specified in Section 54(1), shall be deposited in the specified Bank or institution and utilised in accordance with any scheme which the Central Government may notify. Section 54B deals with

Munish Babaji Sawant, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 744/MUM/2022[MUNISH BABJI SAWANT]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022

For Appellant: Shri. Anil SatheFor Respondent: M/s. Neeta Jeph

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 54Section 54(1)Section 54(2)

54 was 5 I.T.A. No. 744/Mum/2022 MUNISH BABAJI SAWANT utilized either for purchasing or constructing residential house in India within time prescribed under section 54(1), assessee could not be denied benefit of section 54 for mere non- compliance of a procedural requirement under section 54(2). For this proposition ... that date, constructed, one residential house in India, then the capital gain shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions made under section 54(1)(i)(ii) instead of being 11 I.T.A. No. 744/Mum/2022 MUNISH BABAJI SAWANT charged to income tax as income of the previous year in which

Income Tax Officer Non-Corporate Ward-10(6), Chennai vs. Shri Arun Gupta, Chennai

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

ITA 844/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 844/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Income-Tax Officer, Shri. Arun Gupta, Non-Corporate Ward -10(6), V. No. 3B, Block, Lloyds Colony, Chennai – 34. Lloyds Road, Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014. [Pan: Agrpa-8340-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. N.V. Balaji Advocate & Mrs. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2022

For Respondent: Shri. N.V. Balaji Advocate &

Section 139(1)Section 54Section 54E

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए ’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax-24(1), Mumbai vs. Bhavesh Surendra Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 998/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.998/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19) Acit-24(1) बिधम/ Bhavesh Surendra Shah Room No.601, Piramal 34/P, Laxmi Industrial Vs. Chambers, Jeejeebhoy Estate, New Link Road, Lane, Lalbaug, Parel, Andheri-W, Mumbai- Mumbai-400012. 400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps0265M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Mr. Dalpat Shah Revenue By: Mr. Chetan Kacha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 12.03.2022 For Ay. 2018-19. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Revenue Reads As Under: - “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Allowing Deduction U/S 54(1) Of Rs.2,29,33,659/- Of The I. T. Act, 1961. 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Is Eligible For Deduction U/S 54(1) Of The I. T. Act, 1961 Provided The Assessee Invests In A New Capital Asset Within A Period Of One Year Before Or Two Years After The Date Transfer Of Old House, The Taxpayer Should Acquire Another Residential House Or Should Construct A Residential House Within A Period Of Three Years From The Date Of Transfer Of The Old House.

For Appellant: Mr. Dalpat ShahFor Respondent: Mr. Chetan Kacha (Sr. AR)

Section 54Section 54(1)

From the aforesaid fact, according to the AO, the assessee’s claim of exemption is covered under the first condition of Section 54(1) of the Act i.e. purchase of new asset within one year before to two (2) years after the sale of original asset. In this regard

Parthiban Kalavathi, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 11, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1131/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1131/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Parthiban Kalavathi, The Asst. Commissioner Of 74, Pidariar Koil Street, Vs. Income Tax, George Town, Non Corporate Circle-11, Chennai – 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Cxrpk-1062-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2022 : 21.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai, In Ita

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 54F

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य

Manoj Tekriwal, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 24(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4147/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri G.P. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, Sr. AR CIT

Section 14ASection 234ASection 250Section 40Section 54

house’, the expression ‘one residential house’ was substituted. We find that while deciding the issue whether word 'a residential house' as occurring in section 54(1) can include more than one or plural residential house, Hon’ble Madras High Court in Tilokchand & Sons v/s ITO, [2019] 413 ITR 189 (Madras

Shri. Uday Rajaram Lad, Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT Circle-20 (3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6735/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bleshri Uday Rajaram Lad V. Acit – Circle – 20(3) 5Th Floor, Rajaram Estate Room No. 614 Dadasaheb Phalke Road Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug Dadar (E), Mumbai – 400014 Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Aabpl7095H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Tikekar Department By : Shri S.N. Kabra

For Appellant: Shri Deepak TikekarFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 45Section 54

duly signed and all payments were received, therefore, it tantamount to transfer of the property which is prior to the time provided by Section 54(1). Hence as per provision of the law, appellant is not eligible for any exemption u/s.54 of the Act. In view of these facts

Rani Jagdish Sahdevan, Mumbai vs. ITO 25 (3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid findings

ITA 162/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Ajay SinghFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay, CIT–DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54Section 54(2)

till 31.01.2015, in case of purchase of new residential house and till 31.01.2016, in case of construction of the new residential house, under section 54(1) of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that in the present case, the assessee has not utilized the amount for the purpose ... dispute, the second payment of Rs.24,25,000 was made vide cheque dated 13.02.2015, i.e. beyond the period of two years as per section 54(1) of the Act, for the purchase of new residential house. Thus, even if the provisions of section 54(2) of the Act are liberally

Shri Rajeev Nataraj Legal Heir of Late Shri P Nataraj, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-10(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 848/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Rajeev Nataraj, L/H Of Late Shri P Nataraj, No. 63, 1St Cross, The Income Tax Udaya Nagar, Officer, Chikkalsandra, Off Ward 10(2), Uttarahalli Road, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 061. Pan: Ahapn9475D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, Ar : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 11/02/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2008-09 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Appeals] U/S 250 Of The Act & That Of The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 143[3] R/W 147 Of The Act To The Extent Which Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 143[3] R.W.S 147 Of The Act Is Bad In Law Since The Mandatory Conditions As Envisaged

For Appellant: Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, AR

Section 143Section 234Section 250Section 54

light of records placed before us. 15. Section54(1) of the Act, read, prior to amendment by Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, as under: Section 54………. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-Section (2), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family

Smt. S.M.Shoba, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 1955/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 Smt. S.M. Shoba, No. 1489, First Floor, The Income Tax 40Th Cross, 4Th T Block, Officer, Jayanagar, Ward 7 (2)(1), Bangalore – 560 041. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Cxkps1454H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ramasubramanian, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.07.2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-7, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals) In So Far It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Denying The Cost Of The Land For Claiming Exemption U/S. 54F Of The Act On The Ground That Such Land Was Purchased Four Years Prior To The Date Of Sale Of Original Asset. 3. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Making An Enhancing The Assessment By Making A Of Disallowance From Rs.

For Appellant: Shri Ramasubramanian, CA

Section 54F

argument made by Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue in the case on hand. She ha5 argued that the language of Section 54(1) of the Act is very clear and that this being a benefit given to the assessee, it requires a strict interpretation. In this regard ... decision of the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court in the case of C.Aryama Sundaram are as hereunder : "14. Under Section 54(1) of the said Act, the capital gain arising from transfer of a residential house is not to be charged to income tax as income

Robin Singh Chauhan, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 29(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7074/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 Robin Singh Chauhan, Vs Acit, 100/1, Gautam Nagar, Circle-29(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaepc9857F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Smt. Rano Jain, Advocate & Shri Venkatesh Chaurasia, Ca Revenue By : Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27Th September, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-10, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Years 2012- 13. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, In Brief Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derives Income From Long-Term Capital Gain & Other Sources. He Filed His Return Of Income On 28Th July, 2012 Declaring The Total Income At Rs2,61,98,009/- Which Was Processed U/S 143(1). Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Compulsory Scrutiny Under Cass. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Noted That The Assessee Has Shown An Income Of Rs.2,46,33,865/- Under The Head ‘Long- Term Capital Gain.’ The Assessee Has Claimed Deduction U/S 54 Of The Act For An Amount Of Rs.2,05,71,400/- On Account Of Investment In Two Properties. The Calculation Of The Cost Of Acquisition Of The New Property As Submitted By The Assessee & Reproduced By The Ao Is As Under:-

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 54

interpreting the expression 'a residential house'. Therefore, the contention of the revenue that the assessee is not entitled to benefit of exemption under Section 54(1) of the Act in the facts of the case does not deserve acceptance.” 14. We find, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

Nina Luthra, Noida vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Noida

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3861/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Nina Luthra, F No 20, Sector-37, Vs. Ito, Noida, Uttar Pradesh Ward-1(2), Pan: Actpl6023F Noida (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Aditi Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 54Section 69

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT

Sh. Valmik Thapar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 5767/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

1 April 1981. 41. With respect to the ground number [2] of the appeal, he submitted that under the provisions of Section 54 (1) of the act the assessee is only entitled to the deduction of one residential house property whereas the assessee has claimed deduction on more than

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Valmik Thapar, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6726/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

Shri Valmik Thapar, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6346/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

Sanjiv Ahuja, Delhi vs. ITO (International Taxation), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 977/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaasstt. Year 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Akshat Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Dudeja,Sr. DR

Section 13(2)Section 54

only ‘one residential house’ with effect from assessment 14 year 2015-16 and not retrospective effect. I find the provision of section 54(1) reads as under :- “[Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family ... Bench of this court in case of Smt. KG Riikminicimma {supra) dealt with the meaning of expression 'a residential house' used in Section 54(1) of the Act while taking into account Section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 held that unless there is anything repugnant

Smt. Harminder Kaur, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2656/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 139(4)Section 148Section 54

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P