ACIT, MANGALORE vs. SRI. J. KRISHNA PALEMAR, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2011-12

3. Property at 90B, Boloor Village Mangalore 4. Property at Katipalla Village Mangalore 5. Flat at Ashoka Majestics and 5H project of M/s. Landlinks Proprietary concern of the Appellant AO has observed that, as per the proviso to section 54F, if assessee owns more than one residential house

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

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

property\", other than the new asset, the amount of capital gain\narising from the transfer of the original asset not charged under section 45 on the\nbasis of the cost of such new asset as provided in clause (a), or, as the case may be,\nclause (b), of sub-section (1), shall be deemed to be income chargeable under

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

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

properties are held in India or Abroad for the purpose of deduction u/s 54F of the Act. The AO made an addition of Rs.13,41,39,988/- claimed by the assesse as deduction u/s 54F of the Act. 19. Aggrieved by the aforesaid addition made by the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the order

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

3) That the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in applying the amendment brought in Finance (No.2) Act 2014 to the proviso to section 54F(1) of the Act and thereby denying the exemption even though the amendment was made only to sub-section(1) of section 54 and 54F

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

3 years if the assessee has not constructed/purchased any residential house as per the conditions stipulated in section 54F of the Act. Since both grounds are inter- related, we consider these two grounds collectively. 8. Facts of the issue are that during the year under appeal, the assessee had sold the 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

3 years from date of transfer of original asset is constructing other two residential houses (as a result of joint Development agreement) with income chargeable under the head "Income from House Property" apart from new asset for which exemption under section 54F

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

3 years from date of transfer of original asset is constructing other two residential houses (as a result of joint Development agreement) with income chargeable under the head "Income from House Property" apart from new asset for which exemption under section 54F

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 Act provides for\nexemption of long term capital gains on transfer of any capital asset,\nif the net sale consideration is re-invested in acquisition of a\nresidential house. One of the conditions in order to claim the benefit\nu/s 54F of the Act is that on the date of transfer of asset, the tax\npayer

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

54F and making addition therein. Thus, the order passed by the CIT(A) is erroneous and bad in law. 3. The CIT(A) has also erred to state that the appellant was not able to prove that the house has been constructed within 3 years and the completion certificate issued by Concorde Housing (P) Ltd showing the date of completion

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

3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee filed his return of income belatedly on 29th March, 2013 under section 139(4), declaring total income of Rs. 8,32,830/-. The return of income was selected for framing scrutiny assessment by Revenue under CASS. Statuary notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued

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

3. LICENCE : The Owners do hereby irrevocably permit the Developers to enter upon the Schedule Property for development thereof and accordingly, have permitted the Developers to enter upon the Schedule Property for the purpose of commencement of development works. The Developers shall be entitled to commence and complpte development of the Schedule Property along with the three adjacent properties referred

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

3 Sri P.Krishna Reddy the Jurisdictional High Court, wherein on similar set of facts, deduction u/s 54F was allowed on one residential flat from out of four flats received by the landlord as part of sharing in Joint Development Agreement. 9. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant has fulfilled the condition of investment

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 on the reason that the assessee constructed the building having following constructions: “The building is having Ground, First & Second Floor. Ground

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

3. The ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to allow the deduction u/s. 54F when there is no explicit provision regarding investment in construction of the property for the purpose of claim of deduction under the said section in the statute. 4. The ld. CIT(A) had erred in considering the agreement for ‘construction of building’ which

DR. DEVIKA GUNASHEELA,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year: 2012-13

3 years for construction of the house property, but the capital gain on the transfer of original house property is taxable in the previous year in which transfer took place. Hence, the assessee will have to take a decision for the purchase/construction of the house property till the date of furnishing of the return otherwise the capital gain would become

SIR ANIL DEV ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assesseee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013 – 14 Shree Anil Dev, C/O M/S Suresh & Co., Chartered Accountants, Dcit Circle – 2 (2) (1), #43/16, ‘Srinidhi’, 1St Floor, Vs. Bengaluru Surveyor Street, Basavangudi, Bengaluru - 560004 Pan : Aeppd4791L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shree Nitish Ranjan, C. A. Revenue By : Smt. R. Premi, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2020 O R D E R Per Arun Kumar Garodia, A. M.: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit(A) – 10 Bengaluru Dated 10.01.2018. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Several Grounds But Learned Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That As Per These Grounds, This Is The Only Effective Grievance Of The Assessee That The Ao & Cit (A) Were Not Justified In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee For Deduction U/S 54F. Page 2 Of 14

Section 54f mandates that the house should be purchased by Me assessee and it does not stipulate that the house should be purchased in the name of the assessee only. Here is a case where the house was purchased by the assessee and that too in his name and wife's name was also included additionally. Such inclusion

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

3 years – Assessee had sold capital assets in the previous year relevant to the --.nz year 2007-08, resulting in capital gains. The exemption was claimed unit- section 54F as assessee was proposing to construct a residential house 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