ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. PRASHANTH PRAKASH, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the Cross Objection by assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2009-10

Section 54F(1) lays down that any capital gain arising from transfer of long term capital asset, not being a residential

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

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

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

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

Section 54F(1), if the assessee wants the benefit of\nSection 54F, then he should deposit the said capital gains

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

1)F or to invest in residential property within the stipulated time for enabling deduction under section 5 4F of the Act. Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in decision of CIT vs.Sambandam Udaykumar (supra) took the view that, under provisions of section 54F of the Act, the condition preceded is that, capital gains

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

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

1)F or to invest in residential property within the stipulated time for enabling deduction under section 5 4F of the Act. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in decision of CIT vs.Sambandam Udaykumar reported in 251 CTR 371 took the view that, under provisions of section 54F of the Act, the condition preceded is that, capital gains

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

ITO vs. R. SRINIVAS,

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

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 139(1) of the Act. The learned Departmental Representative vehemently argued that the conclusion of the learned CIT (Appeals), to allow the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 54F

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

1) Any profits or 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

1) Any profits or 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

ANANDAKRISHNANA VAIDYANATHAN ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarishri Anandakrishnan Vaidyanathan, No.306, Vishal Nest, Amruthahalli, Bangalore-560 092 ….Appellant Pan Aakpv 3185H Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(3)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri K.V.Narasimhan, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jcit (D.R.)

capital gains arising on account of sale of shares of Rs.1 Crore under Section 54EC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). Thesaid investment of Rs.1 Crore was factually made in two instalments of Rs.50 lacs each within the statutory period of six months from the date of sale of shares in question. The said period of six months

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

1) Any profits or 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

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

54F. Applying the same analogy, the assessee pleaded that the capital gain in question should be allowed as deduction u/s. 54B of the Act. 9. The AO, however, did not allow the claim of assessee and he proceeded to hold as follows:- “According to sec. 54B cited above, the assessee ought to have purchased a property within the stipulated period

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.

1)F or to invest in residential property within the stipulated time for enabling deduction under section 5 4F of the Act. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in decision of CIT vs.Sambandam Udaykumar reported in 251 CTR 371 took the view that, under provisions of section 54F of the Act, the condition preceded is that, capital gains

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

54F of the Income tax Act 1961 of Rs. 1,86,63,291/- has been disallowed and the Long Term Capital Gain arising on sale of capital asset of Rs.1,86,63,291/- has been brought to tax. The assessee has not furnished any registered deed/ document to substantiate the cost of acquisition adopted. However, the cost of acquisition

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

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

DR. DEVIKA GUNASHEELA,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

1,4900000 Net capital gains Nil” 4. It can be seen from the aforesaid computation that the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 54 of the Act. The scheme of taxation of capital gain under the Act needs to be seen to decide the issues in this appeal. Under Section 45 of the Act, any profits or gains arising from

SHRI.PARSWANATH PADMARAJAIAH JAIN ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. K. Garodia & Shri. Laliet Kumari.T.A No.453/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Shri. Parswanath Padmarajaiah Jain, 9Th Main, Koramangala 3Rd Block, Bengaluru 560 034 .. Appellant Pan : Aehpp3827M V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bengaluru .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ganesh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Vikas K. Suryawamshi, Addl. Cit Heard On : 13.12.2018 Pronounced On : 21.12.2018

section 54F relevant for the impugned assessment year, as under: 54F. CAPITAL GAIN ON TRANSFER OF CERTAIN CAPITAL ASSETS NOT TO BE CHARGED IN CASE OF INVESTMENT IN RESIDENTIAL HOUSE (1