DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU vs. ALAGAPPA ANNAMALAI (HUF), BENGALURU

The appeals of the assessees are allowed\nand revenue appeals are dismissed

gains arising from\nthe transfer of a capital asset effected in the\nprevious year shail, save as otherwise\nprovided in sections 54,54B, 54D, 54E,\n54EA, 54EB. 54F

SRI ALAGAPPA ANNAMALAI(HUF),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed\nand revenue appeals are dismissed

gains arising from\nthe transfer of a capital asset effected in the\nprevious year shail, save as otherwise\nprovided in sections 54,54B, 54D, 54E,\n54EA, 54EB. 54F

SRI ALAGAPPA MUTHIAH(HUF),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed\nand revenue appeals are dismissed

gains arising from\nthe transfer of a capital asset effected in the\nprevious year shail, save as otherwise\nprovided in sections 54,54B, 54D, 54E,\n54EA, 54EB. 54F

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

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

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

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

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

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

54F or section 54G or section 54GA or section 54GB were inserted by the Finance Act, 2019 which is effective from 01.04.2020, but the impugned case on hand is related to the AY 2018-19 & therefore the exemption u/s 54/54F can be claimed even without filling a return of income. Lastly the ld. AR submitted that the Assessee has invested

M/S. ATRIA WIND (KADAMBUR) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALUAU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in sections 54, 54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F

NAVJYOTI SHARMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT ASMNT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 54F of the Act. The essence of the said provision is whether the assessee who received capital gains has invested

LATE JAGJIT SINGH BAJWA LEAGAL HEIR HARLEEN BAJWA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 54F of the Act provides for\nexemption of long term capital gains on transfer of any capital asset,\nif the net sale

SMT. REHANA ABDUL JABBAR,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), MANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

54F of the Act and capital gain ought to have been brought to tax as deemed capital gain only after expiry of 3 years if the assessee has not constructed/purchased any residential house as per the conditions stipulated in section

BALUSA VENKATA MURALIKRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOMETAX OFFCIER, INTL TAXN, WARD1(2), BANGALORE, KORAMANGALA

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

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

SHANKAR RAJASHEKAR,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2)(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, concerning the alleged capital gains, be removed. The property has not been sold, and there is no realized capital gain to be taxed. To substantiate the claims made above, I am submitting the following documents:  Bank Statement: Demonstrating that there have been no transactions related to the sale of the properties. Annexure

R. JAYANNA HUF,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

capital gain of ₹60,11,919 and added it to the total income of the assessee. 4. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO and also denied the exemption claimed by the assessee under section 54F

SHRI. VADAGUR NARAYANAPPA PREMACHANDRA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

capital gains and had constructed residential houses. Circular No. 667 dated October 18, 1993 ([1993] 204 ITR (St.) 103), did not stipulate that the construction would have to be completed in order to have the benefit under section 54F

MAHESH REDDY,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

capital gains\nof Rs.7,12,17,657/- on which deduction of Rs.4,82,00,000/- had\nbeen claimed u/s 54F of the IT Act. The assessee has not made any\nsubmissions regarding the alternative claim made in place of the\nclaim already made in the return, nor has he submitted the details\nof deduction claimed u/s 54F therefore, the claim

MAHESH REDDY ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

capital gains\nof Rs.7,12,17,657/- on which deduction of Rs.4,82,00,000/- had\nbeen claimed u/s 54F of the IT Act. The assessee has not made any\nsubmissions regarding the alternative claim made in place of the\nclaim already made in the return, nor has he submitted the details\nof deduction claimed u/s 54F therefore, the claim

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(2) , BANGALORE vs. SHRI. INDRAJEET GHORPADE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

54F at Rs. 4.70 crores on a capital gain declared at Rs. 5.20 crores in a cryptic manner. The conditions as per section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI MUNI REDDY SANTHOSH REDDY, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2014-15

Capital Gains Account Scheme for the future utilization within the provisions of section 54F of the Act. There is no dispute