“Section 54(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 54Section 54(2)55 judgments

ZAFAR IQBAL,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

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

meant only section 139(1) but it means all sub-sections of section\n139 of the Act.\nProvisions of section 54F(4) and section 54(2) are in pari materia and the\nHon'ble Guwhati High Court In CIT vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2006) 286 ITR\n274 (Gauhati), in which ... case it was the contention of the Revenue that since\nthe assessee had not complied with the provisions of section 54(2) of the Act\nby not depositing the unappropriated amount of capital gain in the capital\ngain deposit scheme, 1988 within the stipulated time of furnishing the return\nu/s

JAYASHREE MUKUND MARATHE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 42(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2605/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethjayashree Mukund Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 42(2)(3), Marathe, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bldg. No. 8, Flat No. 9, Sachin Mumbai-400051. Chs, Mithagar Road, Mulund East, Mumbai-400081. Pan/Gir No: Abdpm3677K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Vipul Joshi Respondent By Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr Dr) Date Of Hearing 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23.02.2026 O R D E R Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am:

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54Section 54(2)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

RAMAUTAR SARAF (HUF),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 59(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2482/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Section 143(2)Section 54

expires; and\n(ii)\nthe assessee shall be entitled to withdraw such amount in\naccordance with the scheme aforesaid.\"\nThus clearly, as per section 54(2), exemption to the extent of amount utilized for\nconstruction is to be granted in the year of transfer of asset and the condition ... used the\nexpression 'towards the purchase of plant and machinery' as in Section\n54(4) of the Act in contrast to Section 54(2) of the Act wherein the words\n'towards' is used before the word 'purchase'. The expression 'purchased'\nused in sub-clause (a) of section

RANJIT V SRIVATSAA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1755/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. G.Vardini Karthik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

assessee shall be entitled to withdraw such amount in accordance with the scheme aforesaid.” 16. On perusal of the proviso (i) of Section 54(2) of the Act, it is clearly stated that the amount so deposited in the Capital gain scheme is not utilized for purchase or construction

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)

contending that the assessee had not deposited the said amount in Capital Gain Account Scheme (“CGAS”) in accordance with section 54(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. AO completed the Page 3 of 10 ITA No 1472 of 2025 Nitin Bhatia assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s ... deduction of Rs. 22,51,617/- was solely on account of non-deposit of the unutilized amount in CGAS as contemplated under section 54(2) of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that section 54(2) of the Act is only procedural and directory in nature and cannot override

MADAN LAL BHASKAR,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD 1(3), FARIDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4416/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4416/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Madan Lal Bhaskar, Income Tax Officer, Jeevan Nagar, Sikka Enterprises, Vs. Ward 1(3), Faridabad, Haryana. Faridabad. Pan No.Aejpb6367A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 221Section 250

Gains Account Scheme’ (“CGAS”) before the due date for filing of return of income under section 139(1), as per the provision of section 54(2) of the Act. (iii) That the abovesaid disallowance has been confirmed despite the fact that the exemption has been claimed in accordance with

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)

that the appellant is not eligible for claiming deduction to the extent of Rs. 20 lakh beyond time limit prescribed under provisions of section 54(2) of the Income Tax Act. In this case, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of Ld. AO by stating that the appellant ... eligible for claiming deduction to the extent of Rs.20 lakh paid on 20/03/15 which is beyond the time limit prescribed under provisions of section 54(2) of the I.T Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT failed to appreciate that

MOHIT GUPTA,CHENNAI vs. ITO,NON- CORP WARD 17(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1847/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1847/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Mohit Gupta, The Income Tax Officer, T45, Old No.T11, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 17(2), Vi Avenue, Chennai. Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 090. Pan: Aoqpg 5419R (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 : 20.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 2(47)(iva)Section 250Section 45Section 48Section 53ASection 54Section 54(2)

rejected by the AO. As regards the claim of exemption u/s.54 of the Act, the AO held that in light of provision of section 54(2) of the Act, since assessee had not deposited the sale proceeds in the capital gains account scheme before the due date of filing ... appellant is not eligible for exemption under section 54 due to non- compliance with the mandatory requirements of section 54(2).  Even assuming the compromise decree evidences possession in 2017 mere is no separate agreement of part-performance furnished by the appellant nor say registered agreement preceding the sale deed

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)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM Ram

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

made any investment in the Capital Gains Accounts Scheme as mandated under IT(IT)A No.258/Bang/2025 HanchipuraChannaiah Nandakishore, Bangalore Page 4 of 16 section 54(2) of the Act. 5 The construction has not been completed within three years period i.e. within 31/07/2018. 3.3 The AO accordingly assessed the LTCG

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)

date of transfer, than it is to be considered, that, the assessee has satisfied, the mandatory requirement U/s 54(1) to get exemption. Section 54(2) can not be read in isolation and mere non compliance of procedural requirement U/s 54(2), itself cannot stand, in way of assessee

AYYUB JAFRI,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW

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

ITA 177/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 80J

assessee on 25.12.2003, for which he had adopted land rate as deemed cost of Rs. 1,73,635/- as on 1.04.1981 under section 54(2)(6)(G) of the Income Tax Act. It was submitted that while filing the return of income, the Advocate included the entire

SMT . RAJANI SURENDRA ADAMANE ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), NAGPUR

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 103/NAG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrysmt. Rajani Surendra Ito, Ward-4(4), Nagpur Adamane, Plot No.30, Near Ghodke School Surendra Vs. Nagar, Hudkeshwar Road, Nagpur-440024. Pan: Alapa 9897 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 250Section 50CSection 54(2)Section 54F

though considered the aforesaid claim of the Assessee, however, not accepted the same in view of the provisions of section 54(2) and observed that the Assessee has not deposited the amount of unutilized in the capital gain in scheme till the date of filing of return and therefore

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)

construction of property before the due date for furnishing the return of income. Hence, the assessee has not satisfied the provisions of section 54(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and therefore not eligible to claim exemption u/s 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Accordingly the deduction claimed

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

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 earned from capital gain in a scheme framed in this respect ... stipulated period, then section 54F(4) of the Act is not attracted. At this juncture, it may be noted that the wordings of section 54(2) of the Act are almost identical to section 54F(4) of the Act. Now, in the given facts and circumstances of the case

PRAKASH BARE,BENGALURU vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(2)(1), KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU

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

ITA 1030/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year :2020-21

For Appellant: Shri. B. N. Pattabhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Rajamanohar, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

unused Long Term Capital Gains of Rs 32,70,369/- in a separate account called Capital Gains Account Scheme Account in terms of Section 54(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961, may please be pardoned and the Appellant be granted deduction of the whole of the Long Term Capital ... unused Long Term Capital Gains of Rs 32,70,369/- in a separate account called Capital Gains Account Scheme Account in terms of Section 54(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961, may please be pardoned and the Appellant be granted deduction of the whole of the Long Term Capital

ARTHUR JAGARAJ DEVAPRAGASAM,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 710/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:710/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arthur Jagaraj Devapragasam, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.C-5, Marble Arch Apartments, Vs. Income Tax, No.2 Valliammal Street, Non-Corporate Circle-8(1) Vepery, Chennai-600 007. Chennai. [Pan: Acypa-9529-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri. R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54(2)

frame. Instead, the assessee claimed deduction u/s.54 in respect of the amount of Rs.6.45 crores deposited in the capital gain a/c. as per section 54(2) of the Act. 6. In line with the proviso to section 54(2), since the assessee could not utilise the amount lying ... before us. 9. The ld. AR for the assessee submitted that both the AO and ld.CIT(A) have incorrectly interpreted the provisions of section 54(2) of the Act and its proviso. He argued that their conclusion that the failure to purchase a residential property within 2 years

RAJ KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-58(4), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3092/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 46ASection 48Section 54

Bench of this Court in which one of us (Hemant Gupta, J.) was a member, had an occasion to consider the provisions of Section 54(2) of the Act, wherein it has been held that sub- section(4) of Section 139 of the Act is in fact a proviso

KAVITA MANOJ DAMANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERM INT TAX WARD 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2648/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54Section 64(1)(iv)

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘I’ BENCH MUMBAI\nBEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n&\nSHRI VIKRAM

MURUGAN DORAISAMY,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD-1(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 367/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.367/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23 Murugan Doraisamy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 16, 17 & 18, Appasamy Towers, International Taxation Ward 1(2), Sir Thiyagaraya Road, Pondy Bazaar, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Awkpm2217P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. Ranga Ramanujam, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2025 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. The Assessee Raised 10 Grounds Of Appeal, Amongst Which, The Only Short Point Raised For Consideration Whether The Assessing Officer Is 2

For Appellant: Shri P. Ranga Ramanujam, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

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

under section 54(1) of the Act cannot be denied. He submits that it is a mere non-compliance of procedural requirement under section 54(2) of the Act itself cannot stand in the way of getting the benefit to the assessee under section 54F of the Act. He drew

Showing 1–20 of 55 · Page 1 of 3