M/S SRI, M. GEORGE JOSEPH,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

Section 54F for having purchased residential flat in Brigade Gateway, Bangalore under agreements dt.30.12.2006. The appellant had entered into an agreement for purchase of residential flat in Brigade Gateway promoted and developed by Brigade Enterprises Ltd., Bangalore, first in the name of his daughter Mrs. Anu Joseph, vide purchase agreement dt.30.12.2006 for a total consideration of Rs.93

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 since it is a duplex house containing single Khatha number, single Property Identification (PID) number. Each of the above grounds is independent of one another

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

68,19,120/-\n3.4 Whereas, while totalling, the loss of House property income\ntreated as positive income accordingly it is added and instead of\narriving at GTI of Rs. 166,30,917/- had arrived at Rs.\n169,49,437/- which is increased by Rs. 318,520/- which is twice\nthe figure of Loss of Rs. 159,260/- because of positive

SMT. KEMPANNA SHYLAJA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

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

54F of the I.T.Act, since the relevant A.Y. was prior to the amendment to section 54 of the I.T.Act (i.e.01.04.2015). It is ordered accordingly. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs.17,00,000 u/s 68

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 of the Act may be allowed and the relief be granted to the Assessee.” 7. In addition to the written synopsis, he also submitted the receipts from the sale of capital assets were invested in the purchase of two plots from the BDA. The first plot was purchased on 31/10/2014 for Rs.82,68

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

54F. Capital gain on transfer of certain. capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house.—(1) Where, in the case of an assessee being an individual, 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

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

68,390/- as against the returned income of Rs. 2,57,770/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant has utilized the capital gains for acquiring a house property, by making payments to the seller of the house property and has made a proper claim of deduction under

SRI. A.R. PRASAD,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

section 54F of the Act by holding that the said benefit is available only in case of one residential flat for the relevant assessment year. 6.3 The AO erred in not allowing the said exemption u/s. 54F of the Act even to the extent of flats acquired by the Appellant, situated in the same building

SMT. A.P. LAKSHMI GOWRI,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

section 54F of the Act by holding that the said benefit is available only in case of one residential flat for the relevant assessment year. 6.3 The AO erred in not allowing the said exemption u/s. 54F of the Act even to the extent of flats acquired by the Appellant, situated in the same building

SHRI.RAGHURAM P NAMBYAR,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

68,75,427 invested in the purchase of the new residential property at ‘Mantri Espana’ under the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The learned CIT (Appeals) is not justified in law in not allowing the further claim of exemption under Section 54 / 54F

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. 6. The ld. JCIT-DR for the Revenue, on the other hand, vehemently argued that no deduction u/s 54 can be allowed to the assessee as it has not filed his return of income within the due date as prescribed under section 139(1), and rather return of income was filed belatedly under Section

RAHUL MEKA ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(2) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Grounds on additions made amounting to Rs.28,53,193/- as Long-Term Capital Gains as per section 45 of the Act: 4.1 The learned assessing officer and the learned DRP, were not justified in making and addition of Rs.28,53,193/- as Long- Term Capital gains

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 54 of the I.T Act of the assessee should not be disallowed. In response to the show cause notice issued, the assessee in his reply dated 13.12.2018 has agreed he had in fact made a wrong claim in his ITR and has requested to consider his claim u/s 54F of the IT Act. The assessee had requested

ARJUN M RANGA,MYSURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 54F and that the identity of the deposit in the CGDA Scheme becomes that of the Net Consideration received on transfer of the capital asset without appreciating that there are no statutory provisions in the Act to arrive at such a deeming fiction and therefore, the said view taken is opposed to law and facts of the appellant

ITO, BANGALORE vs. MRS. MARGRIT GOVERDHAN, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four COs are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

54F of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Without prejudice, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate that the learned assessing officer has erred in the calculation of cost of acquisition of the property on the facts and circumstances of the case. ITA Nos. 1353 to 1356/Bang/2015 & C.O. Nos. 93 to 96/Bang/2017

ITO, BANGALORE vs. MRS. MONICA GOVERDHAN, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four COs are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

54F of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Without prejudice, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate that the learned assessing officer has erred in the calculation of cost of acquisition of the property on the facts and circumstances of the case. ITA Nos. 1353 to 1356/Bang/2015 & C.O. Nos. 93 to 96/Bang/2017

ITO, BANGALORE vs. MRS.ANITHA GOVERDHAN, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four COs are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

54F of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Without prejudice, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate that the learned assessing officer has erred in the calculation of cost of acquisition of the property on the facts and circumstances of the case. ITA Nos. 1353 to 1356/Bang/2015 & C.O. Nos. 93 to 96/Bang/2017

ITO, BANGALORE vs. DR. ARVIND GOVERDHAN, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four COs are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

54F of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Without prejudice, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate that the learned assessing officer has erred in the calculation of cost of acquisition of the property on the facts and circumstances of the case. ITA Nos. 1353 to 1356/Bang/2015 & C.O. Nos. 93 to 96/Bang/2017