SHRI KIRANKUMAR RASIKLAL SANGHVI,DEESA vs. THE PR.CIT-4,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi, The Principal Commissioner Of 1, Paras Society, Neminathnagar Income-Tax-4, Vs. Road, Deesa, Gujarat-385535 Ahmedabad Pan : Afops 0131 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri Durga Dutt, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-4, Ahmedabad [Herein- After Referred To As “Pcit”] Dated 03.03.2020, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Noted The Present Appeal To Be Barred By Limitation By 1355 Days. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Explained That There Was, In Fact, No Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal For The Reason That The Assessee Had Inadvertently Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit Before The Surat Bench Of The Itat Which, When The Appeal Came Up For Hearing Before It, Passed A Judicial Order Dated 21.11.2023 Dismissing The Appeal As Withdrawn, Noting The Fact That The Correct Jurisdiction Lay With The 2 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi Vs. Pcit Ay : 2015-16

54F of the Act, which amounted to Rs.3,86,86,482/-. 4.1 Further he directed the AO to examine the issue of the Annual letting value of these residential house properties, identified by him to be owned by the assessee, to be taxable under the head “Income from house property“ as per Section

CHINMAY GAURANGBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT (INTER.TAXA)-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

54F of the Act as well as assessee cannot acquire more than one house property. The appellant has relied upon decision of Hon’ble High court referred in his submission which relates to first restriction provided in section

DCIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ALPESHKUMAR C.PATEL, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1908/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Alpeshkumar C. Patel, A.C.I.T., 503, Milestone Building, Vs. Circle-3(3), Drive In Road, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380052. Pan: Aeapp9489G

properties. The appellant has claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act against the said capital gain. The appellant has contended further that the A.O. has rejected the claim under section 54F of the Act by observing that the commercial tax department has cancelled the TIN of the supplier of the different building material, the appellant owns more than one house

MR. JOBANJI THAKOR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO. WARD-3(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपील सं/ITA No.264/Ahd/2019\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16\nMr. Jobanji Thakor\nThe ITO\nF-40, Abugiri Society\nबनाम / Ward-3(2)(2)\nTal. Daskroi, Jagatpur\nv/s.\nAhmedabad\nAhmedabad - 382 470\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AKNPT 2930 M\n(अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)\nAssessee by:\nShri Mehul K. Patel, AR\nRevenue by :\nShri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR\nसुनवाई की तारीख/Date of

property\nLess: Indexed cost of acquisition (as per DVO report dated\n26.12.2017)\nLess: Cost of transfer (Stamp duty, brokerage, legal\nexpenses, etc.)\nNet capital gain before exemption\nLess: Deduction under Section 54B (Investment in\nagricultural land)\nLess: Deduction under Section 54F (Investment in\nresidential house

SHRI DHANRAJ BAXIRAM CHOPRA,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(4),, AHMEDABAD

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

property has not been fulfilled. Thus the AO denied the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 54F of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A). 5. The assessee before the learned CIT (A) submitted that the requirement specified under section 54F

SHRI VIJAYBHAI HATHISING SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1 , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

property details, other information. 8.1. Thus in our considered opinion that the Assessing Officer has not conducted necessary inquiry before allowing deduction u/s. 54F, but simply allowed the claim made by the assessee. Section 54F of the Act is not applicable, if the assessee at time of transfer of original assets, owns more than one residential house

SHRI VIKAS NARAYAN BADDI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt.Suchitra Kambleassessment Year :2012-13

section 54F of the Act. ii) That even otherwise the facts demonstrate that the assessee intention all along was to immediately invest the net consideration in a new residential house . This he stated was evident from the fact that the assessee had parked the entire consideration immediately, on receipt of the same on sale of his property

SURESHBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL,VADODARA vs. ITO - WARD 1(2)(5), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 255-256/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-13 Sureshbhai Prabhudas Patel, D.C.I.T. Opp Parbadi Padra Road, Vs. Central Circle-2(1) Samiyala Village, Ahmedabad. Vadodara-390002. Pan: Atypp6249H

section 54F of the Act despite the fact that the assessee did not deposit the sale consideration under the capital gain account scheme with the bank. As per the Hon’ble High Court, it was observed that the assessee has made investment in house property

SURESHBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL,VADODARA vs. ITO - WARD 1(2)(5), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 255-256/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-13 Sureshbhai Prabhudas Patel, D.C.I.T. Opp Parbadi Padra Road, Vs. Central Circle-2(1) Samiyala Village, Ahmedabad. Vadodara-390002. Pan: Atypp6249H

section 54F of the Act despite the fact that the assessee did not deposit the sale consideration under the capital gain account scheme with the bank. As per the Hon’ble High Court, it was observed that the assessee has made investment in house property

VINIT BIPINCHANDRA SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(3) (PREVIOUSLY WARD-5(2)(4)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2015-16

house property on the date of transfer of the asset. He explained that other two properties were rented properties and the rental income was offered to tax. Further, that the assessee was not the exclusive owner of two rented properties but was only a co-owner. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not correct in disallowing the deduction under Section 54F

ANIRUDDH RINKI GANDHI,BARODA vs. DCIT (INTL. TAXN), BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2015-16 Aniruddhrinki Gandhi Dcit (Intl.Taxn.) 14, Vaikunh Apartment Vs Baroda. Laxminarayan Co-Op. Society Gotri Road, Baroda. Pan : Bbnpg 1052 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah, Advocate Revenue By : Shri V.K.Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 21.01.2019 Passed By Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] In Appeal No.Cit(A)- 13/Intl.Taxn./Ahd/75/2017-18 Relating To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Assessee’S Grounds Of Appeal Are As Follows:

property or constructing the residential house within the period stipulated in Section 54F(1). The proviso to Section 54F puts

DIPAL SURESHBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

house or in constructing a residential hour within the period stipulated in Section 54F(1), if the assessee wants the benefit of Section 54F, then he should deposit the said capital gains in an account which is duly notified by the Central Government. In the other words if he want of claim exemption from payment of income tax by retaining

SOBHA DIVYANG JOSHI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavassessment Year : 2010-11 Sobha Divyang Joshi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 55, Prathna Vihar Society, Ward 5(2)(3), B/H Manekbaug, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad – 380 006 [Pan : Agxpj 9869 R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M K Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Deelip Kumar, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29/01/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/02/2020

house within the period stipulated in Section 54F(1), if the assessee wants the benefit of Section 54F, then he should deposit the said capital gains in an account which is duly notified by the Central Government. In other words if he want of claim exemption from payment of income tax by retaining the cash, then the said amount

VINODBHAI UGARDAS PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2) PRESENT JURISDICTION THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11 Vinodbhai Ugardas Patel Dy.Cit, Cir.2(1)(1) Nirma House Vs Ahmedabad. B/H. Petrol Pump Ashram Road Ahmedabad 38009. Pan : Aavpp 9679 F. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate Assessee By Revenue By : Ms.Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Guptathis Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(A), Delhi Dated 26.07.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Grounds Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Read As Under:

section 54F of the Act on account of investment of the capital gains in a new residential property amounting to Rs.59,32,904/-. The AO noted that the assessee had purchased two plots of land prior to the selling of old asset for Rs.67,19,250/- and Rs.67,14,600/- and noting that the investment in land had been made

SHRI JIGNESH JAYSUKHLAL GHIYA,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT CIRLCE-4(2), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

section 54F as the investment in residential house would not only include the cost of purchase of the house but also the cost incurred in making the house habitable because an inhabitable premises, cannot be equated with a residential house. If a person cannot live in the premises, then such premises cannot be considered as a residential house. In case

PADMINI SOLANKI, DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. ADITYA HARSHVADAN MANGALDAS, TATVA GARDAN, CUMBALLA HILL, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2022-23

property on the date of sale of capital asset i.e. Artwork/Painting. We, therefore, find that the assessee was not hit by the mischief of proviso to Section 54F of the Act and the deduction claimed under Section 54F could not have been denied for the reason that the assessee was owing more than one residential house

SHRI NANDKISHORE RAMANLAL PARIKH HUF,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 490/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nandkishore Ramanlal Parikh- Ito, Ward-5(2)(3) Huf Vs Ahmedabad. Chitrakut F.P.390 Bh. Shakuntal Complex C.N.Vidyalay Road Ambawadi, Ellisbridge Amedabad 380 006. Pan : Aaghn 0923 H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Arti N. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Lalit P. Jain, Sr.Dr

house within the period stipulated in Section 54F(1), if the assessee wants the benefit of Section 54F, then he should deposit the said capital gains in an account which is duly notified by the Central Government. In other words if he want of claim exemption from payment of income tax by retaining the cash, then the said amount

SMT. BHAVNA HITESH RAWAL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

property. A joint ownership would amount to ownership of the residential house, for the purpose of considering one owns a residential house to fulfill the condition of Section 54F

KANAIYALAL MULJIBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.649/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11

house should be purchased in the name of the assessee only. As a matter of fact, Section 54F in terms does not require that the new residential property