GOBINDRAM CHANDRAMANI VIVEK,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated in this order

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

Capital Gain Deposit Scheme A.Y. 2011-12 Shri. Gobindram Chandramani Vivek with the banks on or before the due date of filing of return of income under section 139(1). Our attention was drawn to the provisions of Section 54. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the judgment and order of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

SRI. RAMAKRISHNA NISHTALA,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

section 54F the Ld.AR submitted that, capital gain arose in the hands of assessee from transfer of long-term capital

SMT.ANUPAMA NAGESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

gain account for availing the deduction under Section 54/54F of the Act. For ready reference Section 54F is reproduced as under : “ 54F. (1) [Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family], the capital

SHRI BHATKAL RAMARAO PRAKASH ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2015-16

54F = Long Term capital Gains x residential house Net Consideration 1,33,89,451 x 76,75,200 = Rs. 73,40,480/- 1,40,00,000 7.2 In view of the above discussion, taxable long term capital gains in assessee case are computed at Rs. 60,48,571/- (Rs. 1,33,89,451 — Rs. 73,40,480) and brought

SMT. PADMA RAJAGOPALAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3)(5), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015 – 16

section 54F of the Act, the condition preceded is that, capital gains realised from sale of capital asset should have

ITO vs. R. SRINIVAS,

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeal and the assessee's C

54F of the Act, since the assessee commenced construction of the new property only on 1.5.2009, the assessee ought to have deposited the amount of capital gains in the Capital Gains Account as per the Scheme framed by the Govt. on or before 31.7.2008, being the due date for filing the return for Assessment Year 2008-09 under Section

CHINNAPPA ANTHONAPPA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2010-11

gain had been invested for construction, but the construction of house was not complete. The Court took the view that requirements of section 54F of the Act were completed by the assessee inasmuch as within the period required by provisions of section 54F of the Act, capital

SMT. S.M.SHOBA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

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.

section 54F of the Act, the condition preceded is that, capital gains realised from sale of capital asset should have

SHARADA MOHAN SHETTY,KARWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2, KARWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Or During The Courses Of Appeal Hearing.” 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 30/09/2015 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Declaring Page 2 Of 16

capital gain the assessee decided to buy a site and construct a house under the provisions of Section 54F of the Income

DR. DEVIKA GUNASHEELA,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year: 2012-13

gain on transfer of a long term capital asset. In case of capital asset being Immovable property consisting of land or building or both, the period of holding is 24 Months to qualify as a long-term capital asset. 6. Under Section 54F

DEV KUMAR ROY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2012-13

54F: (1) Subject to the provisions of sub- section (4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, the capital gain

K S HANUMANTHA RAO,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K

gains." 5.2.4 Perusal of definition of short term capital asset shows that the legislature has used the expression 'held'. In various other allied or similar sections, namely Section 54 / 54F

SRI JOSEPH K.ZACHARIAH ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.879/Bang/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15

section 54F(1) were amended whereby it was laid down that the new asset purchased or constructed by utilising the capital gain

SRI MAHENDRASINGH RAMSINGH JADAV,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(5), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

gains." 6.4 Perusal of definition of short term capital asset shows that the legislature has used the expression 'held'. In various other allied or similar sections, namely Section 54 / 54F

SMT.VANI SHREE ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Vani Shree, No. 49, 3Rd Cross, The Income-Tax Marappa Thota, Officer, J.C. Nagar, Ward 6 (2)(4), Bangalore – 560 006. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Gayps9756K Appellant Respondent : Shri S.V. Ravi Shankar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Ramesh B.R., Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 05.12.2018 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-6, Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Bengaluru, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Herself To Be Liable To Be Assessed To Total Income Of Rs.2,16,39,499/- On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

54F. Capital gain transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house. (1) (Subject to the provisions of sub-section

NAGAMMA,RAICHUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE-WARD 1, RAICHUR

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

gain account scheme account. Hence, the amount spent on construction of house in Financial Year 2018-19 starting from January 2019 was not allowed under section 54F of the Act. The AO allowed index cost of acquisition of Rs.26,92,131/- and deduction under section 54B of the Act was allowed of Rs.16,01,435/-. Accordingly, long term capital

SMT.CHANDRAKALA SHASHIDAR ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

gains either in purchasing the residential house or in constructing a residential 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

SRI G MUNIRAJU,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2010-11 Shri G. Muniraju, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, S/O. Late Shri Chikkaveeraiah, Ward – 7[2][4], 7Th Floor, Bmtc Building, No.47, Uddanahalli Village, Tavarekere Village, 80 Feet Road, Koramangala, Bengaluru South Taluk – 560 082. Bangalore – 560 095. Pan : Akapm 4763 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. B. S. Balachandran, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Lakshmi K, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.02.2019

54F: Capital Gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house- (1) Where, in the case of an assessee being an individual, the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this section