← All Phrases

“Section 54(2)”

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

The decision most relied on for Section 54(2) is Sanjeev Lal v. CIT (365 ITR 389), cited in 122 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 54(2)

Sanjeev Lal v. CIT
365 ITR 389 · 2014 · Supreme Court
122
citing judgments

For claiming capital gains exemption under beneficial provisions like section 54, the 'date of transfer' can be the date of the agreement to sell, particularly when coupled with substantial advance consideration or an enforceable right, adopting a purposive and liberal interpretation to acknowledge the assessee's intent.

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. 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. 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.

Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana
340 ITR 1 · 2012 · Supreme Court
64
citing judgments

A transfer of immovable property by way of sale is legally valid only through a duly stamped and registered deed of conveyance. Unregistered instruments like agreements to sell, General Power of Attorney, or wills do not transfer title or create an interest in the property.

Hirday Naran v. Income Tax Officer
78 ITR 26 · 1970 · Supreme Court
56
citing judgments

Even if statutory language appears merely enabling, courts infer a duty to exercise such power when it aids a citizen's right. Public authorities cannot decline to act when circumstances warrant help, nor can they act to a person's detriment without justification.

Commissioner of Income-tax v. MAC Public Charitable Trust
144 Taxmann.com 54 · 2022 · High Court
55
citing judgments

Additions to income based on statements recorded under Section 132(4) during a search operation are valid, even if later retracted, provided the additions are supported by corroborative seized material and other evidence establishing unaccounted income or transactions.

CIT v. T.N. Aravinda Reddy
120 ITR 46 · 1979 · Supreme Court
54
citing judgments

The word 'purchase' in Section 54(1) and analogous sections like 54F of the Income-tax Act must be given its common, liberal meaning, including acquisition for a price, payment in kind, adjustment of debt, or other monetary consideration. A transfer of a co-owner's share for consideration qualifies as a 'purchase' for claiming capital gains exemption.

Judgments citing Section 54(2)

Mohit Gupta, Chennai vs. ITO, Non- Corp Ward 17(2), 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

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

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

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