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

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

property or constructing the residential house within the\nperiod stipulated in Section 54F(1). The proviso to Section 54F puts

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

house property, the amount is to be deposited with the ‘Capital Gain Account Scheme’ with bank within the due date as prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act, which as per ld. JCIT DR , the assessee failed to do so. Prayers were made by ld. JCIT DR to deny deduction under Section 54 of the Act. At this stage

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

1) of 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

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

house property’. The statutory provision reads as follows:- “Section:54F: (1) Subject to the provisions of sub- section (4), where

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

1,89,663 04/Mar/2015-Paid to interior works for the house 16,156 Amount paid towards interior works for the house 36,13,380 Total amount for claiming exemption u/s 54F in A.Y 2016-17 60,00,000 2.2 The assessee submitted that he had invested in purchase of new residential house within one year before the date of sale

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

houses resulting to assessee as a result of joint ITA Nos.449, 633/Bang/2021 SP No. 111/Bang/2021 (in No.449/Bang/2021) Page 7 of 12 development agreement so as to be complaint with conditions stipulated in section 54F. Thus assessee is in violation of proviso to sub-section (1) of section S4F and also condition stipulated in sub-section (2) of section

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

houses resulting to assessee as a result of joint ITA Nos.449, 633/Bang/2021 SP No. 111/Bang/2021 (in No.449/Bang/2021) Page 7 of 12 development agreement so as to be complaint with conditions stipulated in section 54F. Thus assessee is in violation of proviso to sub-section (1) of section S4F and also condition stipulated in sub-section (2) of section

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

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 gains in an account which is duly notified by the Central Government. In other words if he want to claim exemption from payment of income tax by retaining the cash, then the said amount

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

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 raised by the Revenue in the appeal would show that there is no merit in the grounds raised by the Revenue in its appeal. Section 54F(1

BASHEER NOORULLAH KHAN,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Basheer Noorullah Khan, No. 116B, 5Th Block, Khb The Commissioner Of Colony, Koramangala, Vs. Income Tax (Appeals), Bangalore – 560 034. Bangalore. Pan: Ajxpk3037H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B.S. Balachandran, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2019

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 gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, within a period

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

1,51,74,000/-. The assessee reinvested this amount in a new residential unit and claimed exemption under 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

SRI. RAMAIAH DORAIRAJ,BENGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarishri Ramaiah Dorairaj, No.2186, Bmkaval, Hal 3Rd Stage, Bangalore-560 075 ….Appellant Pan Abrpd 2580L Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2)(2), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri S.V. Ravi Shankar, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Priyadrshi Mishra, Jcit (D.R)

house within the period stipulated in Section 54F(1), if the assessee 5 wants the benefit of Section 54F, then he should deposit the said capital gains in an account which is duly notified by the Central Government. In other words if he want of claim exemption from payment of income tax by retaining the cash, then the said amount

SRI. KEMPANNA (HUF - DISRUPTED),BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2006-07

house for the purposes of section 54F of the Act. The ratio of the aforesaid decisions would be squarely applicable to the appellant's case since the facts of the appellant's case are parallel. 11.4 In view of the above, it is submitted that the appellant is entitled to exemption u/s.54F of the Act, in respect

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

1) of sixth Proviso, section 54, section 54B or section 54D or section 54EC or section 54F or section 54G or section 54GA or section 54GB were inserted by the Finance Act, 2019 which is effective from 01.04.2020, but the impugned case on hand is related to the AY 2018-19 & therefore the exemption u/s 54/54F can be claimed even

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

property at 8/1, Kattigenahalli Village, Bengaluru on 02.06.2012 for a consideration of Rs.1,33,28,405/- (including construction on it). The assessee claimed exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The AO disallowed the claim under section 54F of the Act on the reason that the assessee is owning more than 1 house

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

1. That, the order of the Learned CIT(A), in so far as is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant, is bad and erroneous in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the order of the learned CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO, suffers from legal infirmity and does not stand

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 of the assessee is purchased jointly with his wife. In the case of CIT Vs. Natrajan, (2007) 287 ITR 271 (Mad), though this case was decided in relation to Section 54 of the Act, the said Section is pari materia of Section 54F(1) of the Act. Likewise, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case