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

disallowance of deduction A.Y. 2011-12 Shri. Gobindram Chandramani Vivek u/s 54 and 54F of the 1961 Act. The AO observed that the assessee has sold a residential property on 03.03.2011 for total consideration of Rs. 2,74,00,000/-, and claimed exemption under section 54 amounting to Rs. 1,64,74,870/-. The AO rejected the claim

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

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

disallowance of deduction under section 54 to assessee. (f) N Ram Kumar v. Asstt. CIT [2012] 25 taxmann.com 337/138 ITD 317 (Hyd. - Trib.) – The assessee purchased a flat in the name of her minor daughter and claimed deduction u/s 54F. The exemption was allowed by Hon'ble ITAT. (g) Krishnappa Jayaramaiah v. ITO [2021] 125 taxmann.com 110/189 ITD 15 (Bang

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

disallowance of the exemption claimed u/s 54F of the Act of Rs. 26,06,966/- towards the acquisition of a new residential house at Falnir, Mangalore under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. Smt. Rehana Abdul Jabbar, Mangaluru Page 2 of 14 4. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in sustaining the addition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. SH. NARAYANAPPA RAMANNA, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2008-09 Acit, Vs. Shri Narayanappa Ramanna, Circle – 4(1)(1), 1 B, Narayanapur Village, Bengaluru. K. R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 016. Pan : Afmpr 3833 C Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri. Ganesh S, Advocate. Date Of Hearing : 16.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.04.2024

disallowed the claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act in respect of 14 apartment units and allowed the benefit of investment only on one apartment unit by interpreting as “a residential house” as per the provisions of section 54F of the Act as existing during the relevant Assessment Year viz., Assessment Year 2008-09, to mean only

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.

disallowing the claim of exemption made by the assessee u/s 54F of the Act. The ld. AO had not considered the return of income as valid since the same was not filed in time and the same has been filed only after the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.3.2022. Therefore, the ld. AO rejected the claim

CHANNEGOWDA ASHOK KUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Channegowda Ashok Kumar, Vs. Acit, No.45, 8Th Cross, 11Th Main Road, Circle – 2(1)(1), Malleshwaram, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 003. Pan : Akypk 9979 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Kirath Singh Marhas, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.11.2023

4. The Appellant denies himself to liable to be assessed on a total income of Rs. 2,77,42,708/- as against the returned income of Rs.30,15,170/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 2,47,27,538/- deduction claimed under section 54F

SHRI. PANKAJ KAPUR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

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

section 54F as made by the appellant has been fully supported by evidence which has been placed before him and accordingly he ought to have directed the assessing authority to allow the deduction under sec 54F as claim by the appellant. 15.Without prejudice the disallowances are excessive, arbitrary and unreasonable and liable to be deleted in full. 16.The learned

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

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

disallowance\nof deduction under section 54 of the Act amounting to Rs. 4,80,33,694/- is\nbad in law and deserves to be deleted in its entirety.\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the\nabove grounds, at any time before or at the time of hearing.\nThe Appellant prays accordingly.\n2. We consider

CHANGAAI MANGALOTE IBRAHIM,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee's appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 54F, Rs.8,00,00,001/-: a. The learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs.8,00,00,001/- under the head 'capital gains' on the facts and circumstances of the case. b. The authorities below have failed to appreciate that the appellant has utilised a sum of Rs.7

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

disallowance\nof deduction under section 54 of the Act amounting to Rs. 4,80,33,694/- is\nbad in law and deserves to be deleted in its entirety.\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the\nabove grounds, at any time before or at the time of hearing.\nThe Appellant prays accordingly.\"\n2.\nWe consider

M/S. YASHA PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NI,RAICHUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, , RAICHUR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2019-20

disallowance made u/s 80P of the Act is bad in law. M/s. Yaksh Pattina Souharda Sahakari Ni, Raichur Page 3 of 13 3. At the outset, it is observed that there was a delay of 363 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The CIT(A) order has been served to the assessee on 30.10.2021. As per section

VENKATESH SRINIVAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudharysri Venkatesh Srinivas No.75, 2Nd Floor, 8Th Cross Wilson Garden, Bangalore 560 027 ………. Appellant [Pan: Abcpv8163C]

4. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the disallowance of the claim made under section 54F of the Act amounting

LATE ADIREDDY RAMA REDDY L/R BY T N JAYALAKSHMI ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

disallowance since the benefit of section 54F would be applicable to one residential house only. The AO was of the view that the assessee had two dwelling units and therefore they are not entitled for the benefit u/s. 54F of the Act. The AO made the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act in the name of the deceased assessee

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

54F when the deduction of Rs. 82,85,000 was correctly claimed under section 54. This fact is acknowledged in the assessment order. 1.3 In the rectification order, the reason given for rectification is that "it is apparent from records that the assessee did not make investment in a residential house, hence it is proposed to disallow the exemption allowed

MICHEAL GOWDA LAZAR ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(4) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and stay petition is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Ksp No.48/Bang/2025 (In Ita No.1163/Bang/2025) Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Micheal Gowda Lazar, Vs. Ito, No.1401, Near Begur Hospital, Begur Road, Ward – 4(3)(4), Begur, Bangalore. Bangalore – 5565 600. Pan : Acepl 0671 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. N. Madhavan, Redtd. Addl. Commissioner. Revenue By : Shri. Swaroop Mannava, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025

54F of the Act. 4. Further, it was noticed that the assessee has sold original assets on 16.12.2010 bearing survey No.66/3 at Kammanahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and site No.1173, V.P. Katha No.774/B situated at Begur Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, for a total consideration of Rs.35,36,140/-. The assessee in the computation of Income

SHRI. MUNIYAPPA MUNIRAJU ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(3)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Muniyappa Muniraju, No. 94/6, 8Th Main, The Income Tax New Oxford School Officer, Road, Ward – 4 (3)(4), Begur Main Road, Bangalore. Hongasandra, Vs. Bengaluru – 560 068. Pan: Abbpm4961A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri G. Satyanarayana, Ca Revenue By : Shri Nischal .B, Addl. Cit (Dr)

54F. We direct the Ld.AO to delete the disallowance so made. Accordingly, ground no. 2 raised by the assessee stands allowed. 5. Ground no. 3: 5.1 The next issue in appeal is regarding cash deposited during the financial year relevant to Assessment Year under consideration of Rs.41,19,500/- u/s. 69. The Ld.AO disallowed Rs.41

NAVJYOTI SHARMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT ASMNT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowing the deduction u/s. 54 of the Act is that the IT(IT)A No.235/Bang/2025 Navjyoti Sharma, Bangalore Page 7 of 14 assessee had sold the property on 07/09/2015 whereas the registered sale deed of newly purchased property was on 10/01/2019 which was clearly beyond the two years’ timelines as per section 54 of the Act. On going through