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

disallowing the exemption claimed by the assessee under Section 54F of the Act to the extent of Rs.28,22,325, since the assessee has failed to utilize these investment in the new property before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1

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 54F of the Act by owning more than one residential house at the time of sale of original asset. 3) That the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred

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

1. The authorities below are not justified in 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

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

1. The authorities below are not justified in 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

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. 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

disallowed the claim under section 54F of the Act on the reason that the assessee is owning more than 1

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

disallowance of claim u/s 54F of the Act stating that – (i) the plot of open land is involved in the JDA and not a house; (ii) the plot was converted into apartment complex in which the assessee received 14 flats towards his share of 47% of the 5 Sri P.Krishna Reddy built up area and all the flats are numbered

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

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

disallowing the exemption claimed under section 54F in respect of the investment made in residential property prior to the date of sale of original asset is against the principles laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court in the decision of CIT vs. J. R. Subramanya Bhat reported in 165 ITR 571 on the facts of the case. d) The authorities

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

1), Bangalore. CROSS OBJECTOR RESPONDENT Revenue by : Shri P. Dhivahar, Jt. CIT(DR) Assessee by : Shri H.N. Khincha, CA Date of hearing : 02.06.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 11.06.2015 & CO 86/Bang/2015 Page 2 of 24 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan, Judicial Member ITA No.864/B/14 is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 28.3.2014 of the CIT(Appeals

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

Section 54 and 54F, and disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54 and 54F. 13. Aggrieved, the assessee filed second appeal with Tribunal, challenging the addition of Rs. 1

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 –

1,161,500 claimed under section 54F. Section 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

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

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

1), 4th T Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore. Bangalore-560 041 PAN AAJPN 3347F Appellant Respondent. Appellant By : Shri K.S. Nagesh, C.A. Respondent By : Shri AR.V.Sreenivasan, JCIT (D.R) Date of Hearing : 23.02.2017. Date of Pronouncement : 31.03.2017. O R D E R Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M. : This appeal by the assessee is against the order dt.20.08.2016 of Commissioner of Income

ITO, BANGALORE vs. SRI. C. NANJUNDIAH, BANGALORE

In the result we are of the opinion that assessee has to succeed in this appeal

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

disallowed but for a sum of Rs.10,54,169/-. 04. Aggrieved assessee moved in appeal before the CIT (A). Argument of the assessee before the CIT (A) was that even though the amount of Rs.10,01,000/- was deposited in the Capital Gains Account Scheme, beyond the due date of filing the return, still the claim was allowable u/s.54F

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

disallowed. Aggrieved by the said order the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Appellate Authority held the assessee's investment in construction subsequent to the date of sale and investment in the eligible project even after the project of the house is started beyond one year will be eligible for exemption under Section 54F

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

1,73,90,462/- being the entire gross consideration received by the appellant on the sale of property without appreciating that the entire consideration cannot be treated as capital gains under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. Page 2 of 11 2.1 The learned CIT[A] ought to have appreciated that the indexed cost

SRI. M N SHESHAGIRI,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(3), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

disallowing the deduction claimed by the Appellant under Section 54 of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. (b) The learned CIT(A) was not justified in law, in not appreciating that over sight in not making a deposit into the capital gains scheme was a technical default as long as the final objective of acquisition

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

disallowing exemption of Rs. 1,86,63,291/- claimed by the Appellant u/s 54F ol the Income Tax Act, 1961 even though the investment was made by the Appellant in New House within the time prescribed under the IT Act 1961 for the AY2Ol5-16. Rs.56,57,714/- The Appellant also prays for permission to add falter the grounds

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

1. CIT(A)’s order is opposed to the law and facts of the case. 2. CIT(A) wrongly held that appellant has not complied section 54F. CIT(A) failed to notice that Net consideration was fully utilized for land, compound and necessary infrastructure hence compliance of 54F was done by appellant. Hon’ble ITAT may kindly allow deduction