BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

177 results for “house property”+ Section 54F(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai324Delhi307Chennai201Bangalore177Hyderabad117Jaipur94Ahmedabad92Pune82Kolkata58Indore45Chandigarh43Visakhapatnam36Surat30Cochin25Karnataka24Nagpur23Raipur17Lucknow14Patna13Cuttack12Rajkot12Jodhpur10Agra9Amritsar8Dehradun5Ranchi5Jabalpur5Telangana4Calcutta3Allahabad3SC2Punjab & Haryana1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 54F342Section 54133Deduction77Exemption65Capital Gains63Long Term Capital Gains47Addition to Income41Section 143(3)40House Property

SREENIVASULU SAGALETI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2493/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 54FSection 54F(1)Section 54F(4)

property on 14.06.2017, the net consideration from the sale was not utilized towards acquisition or construction of a new residential house as provided in section 54F(1) of the Act by the by the date of filing of return of income. Accordingly, assessee was required under section 54F(4

Showing 1–20 of 177 · Page 1 of 9

...
39
Section 26335
Section 14832
Disallowance28

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

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

ITA 712/BANG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT (DR-I)For Respondent: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate
Section 54F

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

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

ITA 656/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok A Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 54Section 54(2)Section 54F

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2350/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 54FSection 56(2)(vii)

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

SMT.CHANDRAKALA SHASHIDAR ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2)(4), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1039/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Vivek D.S., CAFor Respondent: Sri. Priyadarshi Mishtra, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

4) in the event of the assessee not investing the capital gains either in purchasing the residential house or in constructing a residential 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

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

ITA 164/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Chytanya KK, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayan, JCIT(DR)
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 54FSection 54F(1)

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

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

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

ITA 733/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

For Appellant: Shri. Naginchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, Addl.CIT
Section 54F

house property on 28.08.2010. Sub-section 4 of Section 54F reads as follows : ITA.733/Bang/2014 Page - 5 Sec.54F (4) The 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

ITA 942/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 148Section 2(47)(v)

house”. The provision of section 54F is as follows: “54F. Profit on sale of property used for residence:- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4

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

ITA 192/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri C. Sandeep, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besa Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 54Section 54FSection 54F(1)

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

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

ITA 1771/BANG/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Smt. R. Anitha, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Padma Meenakshi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 54F(4)

house within the period specified under Section 139(4) of the Act, the benefit of Section 54F of the Act cannot be denied. In the case on hand, the original property

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

ITA 1945/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 54F

property and 4 flats representing 48% is the share of the assessee and the remaining 52% representing another 4 flats is the share of the builder. So the consideration for selling 52% of the site was 4 flats representing 48% of built up area and the 4 flats are situated in a residential building. The Court held that the 4

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

ITA 2203/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Council for DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 234BSection 251(1)Section 54

Section 54F(4) and it depends upon when the property of the assessee is sold and when exactly the amounts were invested, whether it was invested in a 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

ITA 633/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S.Padmavathi

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 54Section 54F

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

ITA 449/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S.Padmavathi

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 54Section 54F

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

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

ITA 1899/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

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)

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadrshi Mishra, JCIT (D.R)
Section 54FSection 54F(1)Section 54F(4)

4) in the event of the assessee not investing the capital gains either in purchasing the residential house or in constructing a residential 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

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

ITA 864/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jun 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Dhivahar, Jt. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 54F

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 had not even been registered for reckoning the period prerequisite for claim of deduction u/s. 54F.” 8. The provisions of section 54F of the Act read as follows:- “54F

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

ITA 613/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.B.S.Balachandran, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Swapna Das, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 54FSection 54F(4)

Section 54F(4) and it depends upon when the property of the assessee is sold and when exactly the amounts were invested, whether it was invested in a 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

ITA 309/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 234Section 24Section 45Section 54F

section. Further, as noted by the AO, she had also not deposited the capital gains in the account designated for the purpose, as required u/s 54F(4) of the Act. In view of the above factual matrix, the assessee's claim for exemption u/s 54F of the Act was not admitted by the ld. CIT(A) and dismissed this ground

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

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

ITA 575/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 17ASection 53ASection 54Section 54F

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

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

ITA 2293/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, JCIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 234Section 54F

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