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

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

property and allowed indexed cost of acquisition and deduction under section 54B, but disallowed deduction under section 54F for not depositing sale proceeds in CGAS.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 54F, as the investment was made within the stipulated period for construction of a residential house

DEV KUMAR ROY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2012-13

property for the purpose of claiming benefit under section 54F of the Act. 15. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts, by stating that even if section 54F benefit was available, then the same would be restricted to Rs 27,338,196, being the amount incurred on the construction of residential house

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

property. 2.3 The Ld.AO was of the opinion that assessee has misused provisions under section 54 and 54F of the act and has avoided tax by claim exemption under different sections for different assessment years on different capital gains arisen on sale of different capital assets. He thus denied the exemption of Rs.59,73,467/- claimed by assessee under section

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

section 54 and 54F of the Act. 4) That the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the residential property in Jayanagar has to be considered as one residential house

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

section 54F. It also irrefutable fact that by virtue of Joint Development agreement, assessee is in possession of other residential house the income from which is chargeable under the head "Income from House Property

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

section 54F. It also irrefutable fact that by virtue of Joint Development agreement, assessee is in possession of other residential house the income from which is chargeable under the head "Income from House Property

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

54F on the grounds that the assessee purchased two residential houses on 25.04.2010, and hence , on the date of transfer of original asset, the assessee was in possession of more than one residential house. The assessee had , however, stated before ld. CIT(A) that these two properties were merely registered in his name as a measure of security. The assessee

M/S K.BABU (HUF) ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2010-11 Shri. K. Babu (Huf), Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.57/2, Dollars Colony, Ward – 7(2)(3), 1St Cross, 2Nd Main, 4Th Phase, Bengaluru. J P Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 078. Pan: Aaggk 0809 G Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Kannan Narayanan, Jt.Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2020 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan

house”. The provision of section 54F is as follows: “54F. Profit on sale of property used for residence:- (1) Subject

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 Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer denied this exemption, stating the assessee owned more than one residential property at the time of transfer.", "held": "The Tribunal held that on the date of transfer of the capital asset, the assessee owned only one residential house

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

house property within the meaning of section 54F of the Act. The said property is an open land meant for residence

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

house for the purpose of Sec. 54F of the Act. 6.2 Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative for Revenue submitted that the assessee was not entitled to exemption under Section 54F of the Act and placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Khoobchand M Makhija (2014) 43 taxmann.com

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

property should be in the name of the assessee to prove that the house was constructed within three years. The provisions of 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

property. It was submitted that assessee utlised the entire amount of sale proceeds for the construction of new residential house and thereby the assessee created new asset. The lower authorities rejected the claim of the deduction under section 54F

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

house property". 9. An analysis of the provisions of section 54F of the Act in the light of the grounds

SHRI. G B SHIVARAJAPPA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(2)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K

54F of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in law and on facts in appreciating that the appellant has acquired possession of the house property and was enjoying the rents from the new asset, thereby acquired the house property within the time prescribed under section

SRI DHEERAJ GOVINDAPPA ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(2)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazi.T. A. No.2724/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Shri Dheeraj Govindappa, Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, 1183, 3Rd Cross, 3Rd Stage, Ward – 4[2][2], Hal Layout, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 075. Pan : Bpqpg 3893 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Satya Sai Rath, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2019

house should be purchased in the name of the assessee only. As a matter of fact, Section 54F in terms does not require that the new residential property

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

section 54F as assessee was proposing to construct a residential house property out of the sale consideration of the property

MR. ARUNKUMAR NATHAN,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

54F in respect of a house construction was yet to be completed. The only principle laid down in these decisions that may be applied to all the cases of claiming benefit of section under Section 54/54F of the Act is that this provision is a beneficial incentive to permit the construction of residential house and therefore, to be construed liberally