REJI KRISHNAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 54F correctly. (iii) The Learned AO/CIT(A) has disallowed Exemption claimed u/s 54F on the sale or 2 separate

ROSE GEORGE KOLLANUR,THRISSUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

disallowance by the AO is made merely for the reason that the sale proceeds are not deposited in the capital gain account scheme before the due date for filing the return. The ld. AR also submitted that the deduction u/s. 54F cannot be denied for the reason that the amount is not deposited in the capital gain account scheme

KUNDOLY KRISHNANKUTTY SUNIL,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 2(1), THRISSUR

Section 54F. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) disallowed a portion of these expenses.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the expenses

KUMAR MADHAVANPILLAI.S,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Kumar Madhavanpillai S. Income Tax Officer -1(4) Chandra Press & Book Depot Aayakar Bhavan, Kowdiar P.O. Manjalikulam Road Thiruvananthapuram 695003 Vs. Thampanoor Thiruvananthapuram 695001 [Pan: Ajxps9299P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowing exemption under section 54/54F of the Act and without giving the benefit of the cost of improvement. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual who during the year under consideration sold immovable property being land &building vide deed dated 6th April 2016 for consideration of Rs. 1.75 crore. The assessee 2 Kumar Madhavanpillai

MRS. HEMA RAMNATH,KOCHI vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. Seethalakshmihema Ramnath Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle 1(1) 35/2968, Laxmi Villa Ernakulam 682018 Church Road, Palarivattom Vs. Kochi - 682025 [Pan:Aavpr8682G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallow, for the current year, the deduction allowed u/s. 54F(1) for AY 2007-08 to the extent of Rs. 25,58,075: Capital gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house. 54F. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section

BENEESH KUMAR,KOCHI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 1(1), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Beneesh Kumar .......... Appellant Madathuparambu House, Thattzham Road Vaduthala, Kochi 682023 [Pan: Agipb7548Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Non-Corporate Ward, Kochi Appellant By: Shri Ramesh Cherian, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Omanakutan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2025

disallowed the claim for deduction u/s. 54 of the Act. 3. The factual background leading to the above addition is that during the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration the appellant had sold immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 62,31,820/- which was purchased on 12.03.2004 for a consideration of Rs. 1,62,000/-. The appellant