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 of IT Act. 3. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in upholding disallowance of exemption under section 54F

M/S. KHADEER AHMED KHAN,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 Shri. Khadeer Ahmed Khan, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.42, Doddkallasandara, Income-Tax, Kankapura Main Road, Vs. Circle – 4(2)(1), Bengaluru – 560 062. Bengaluru. Pan : Aavpk 1742 Q Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. H. Guruswamy, Itp Revenue By : Smt. R. Premi, Jcit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 07.04.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2021

section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The AO disallowed the claim under section 54F

SHRI. P. KRISHNA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

disallowed the claim made by the assessee u/s 54F of the Act on the ground that `on the date of transfer of the 4 Sri P.Krishna Reddy original asset’ the assessee was the owner of 14 residential houses that he was receiving as consideration, The AO was of the view that the assessee owns 13 other residential houses in admission

NAGARAJ DESIRAZU,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals by the assessees are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S.Padmavathi

disallowing the claim of exemption u/s 54F of Rs. 85,60,899/-being the deduction ITA Nos.449, 633/Bang/2021 SP No. 111/Bang/2021 (in No.449/Bang/2021) Page 10 of 12 claimed towards the residential unitsfalling to the share of the appellant in terms of the JDA dated 20/06/2014 under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 2. The learned

DESIRAZU SUNDARA SIVA RAO,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals by the assessees are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S.Padmavathi

disallowing the claim of exemption u/s 54F of Rs. 85,60,899/-being the deduction ITA Nos.449, 633/Bang/2021 SP No. 111/Bang/2021 (in No.449/Bang/2021) Page 10 of 12 claimed towards the residential unitsfalling to the share of the appellant in terms of the JDA dated 20/06/2014 under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 2. The learned

SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR VEERABHADRAIAH,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE- 6(2)(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri. Chandrashekar Veerabhadraiah, Ito, No.54, Ramachandrapura, Jalahalli Circle – 6[2][4], Vs. Post, Bangalore – 560 013. Bangalore. Pan No : Aebpv 1717 Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Jcit(Dr)(Itat) Date Of Hearing : 01.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.12.2020

section 54F of the Income Tax act, 1961 (hereafter called ‘the Act’). As such, we are adjudicating only ground relating to disallowance

SRI GOPAL BYRE GOWDA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14 is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jason P Boaz

disallowance of Rs.28,22,325 in respect of the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 54F of the Act. On appeal

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

disallowed and brought to tax as the sale consideration of plots was not deposited in capital gains scheme on or before the due date of filing of the return u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. In response to the show cause notice, the assessee made the detailed submission stating that the sale consideration was invested in a residential house property

M/S SRI, M. GEORGE JOSEPH,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

disallowances to the admitted income by the assessing authority by not deleting such additions in total. 2. Without prejudice, the CIT (Appeals) – III, Bangalore, ought not to have rejected the claim for deduction of Rs.88,98,970 under Section 54F

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 Rs.9,08,474/- of the Act in respect of amount of Rs.65,00,000/- invested in residential property a) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in disallowing

S.M. VINOD (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SRI. S M MUNIYAPPA),BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowing the deduction of Rs.1,63,03,233/- claimed u/s. 54F of the Act on the ground Page 2 of 14 that the appellant has violated the provisions of section

SHRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2013-14 Shri. Praveen Kumar, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.222, K. H. Ranganatha Colony Income Tax, Main Road, Vs. Circle – 3(2)(1), Opp Bhel Mysore Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 040. Pan : Addpk 6151 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Lokesh Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri. A. Ramesh Kumar, Jcit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2020 O R D E R Per A.K. Garodiathis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit(A)-3, Bengaluru, Dated 29.10.2018, For Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:

Section 54F(4) of the Act by stating that the Appellant had not deposited the amount in capital gains account and violated the conditions stipulated u/s. 54F to avail the exemption of capital gain whereas the investment in residential property has been made during the financial year itself. 10. Both Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO erred in disallowing

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

disallowed on fo1lowing grounds :- & CO 86/Bang/2015 Page 4 of 24 a) Construction agreement was entered into by the assessee on 21.11.06 which is beyond one year of the receipt of sale consideration for the sale of shares. b) For buying and selling of immovable property, provisions of Registration Act, 1908 have to be adhered to. The assessee has registered

ITO, BANGALORE vs. MR. CHRISTINA ANN KURIACOSE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. George

disallowance of deduction u/s.54 of the Act, came to Rs.61,76,068/-. 3. Aggrieved, assessee moved in appeal before CIT (A). Reliance was once again placed on the judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in K. G. Rukminiyamma (supra). CIT(A), relying on the above judgement, held that assessee could not be denied deduction claimed by it u/s.54

BHARTUR RAMASWAMY VIJAYENDRA,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 3, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 Shri. Bhartur Ramaswamy Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vijayendra, Circle – 3(1)(1), No.001, Ambar Apartment, Vs. Bengaluru. No.03, Berlie Street, Langford Town, Bengaluru – 560 025. Pan : Abnpv 1032 B Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri. Manjeet Singh, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Assessee By : Shri. S Raghavendra Rao L, Ca Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2020 O R D E R

disallowing the exempt ion claimed u/s 54F deserves to be deleted and exemption claimed u/s 54F restored. 6. The L earned Assessing Officer failed to note that Section

NALWAD PRABHU SOMASHEKHARAPPA,GADAG vs. ITO WARD 1, GADAG

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice –

54F provides for deduction on capital gains if certain conditions are met regarding investment in a residential property. Since no evidence was furnished to support these conditions, the deduction was disallowed. 4. The assessment order was passed on 05/31/2021, disallowing the deduction of ₹1,161,500 under section

MR.RAHIL MAHESH KUMAR NIZAMUDDIN ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

disallowance of deduction of the sum of Rs.11,54,250/- paid by the Appellant towards the Brokerage for sale of Poojanahalli Lands u/s 48 (i) of the Act by misconstruing the decisions in Goetz Case and in Unique Shelters case. 1,97,96,567/- 7 The Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the act of the Assessing Officer in refusing

SMT.TAHERA BEGUM ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

section 54F(4) authorities Assessing Officer to disallow unutilized amount, whereas Assessing Officer has added the full amount. Hon’ble ITAT