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

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

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 and all sales can be reinvested only 1 House Property, which is totally opposed to the established law. (vi) Further

THE ITO,, COCHIN vs. LATE SRI.K.SASIDHARAN REP BY SMT. K.P.SAILAJA, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

section 54F(4) that the deposit of utilized amount in the Capital Gain Accounts Scheme within the due date of filing return u/s. 139(1). 3) Whether the CIT(A) was right in allowing the assessee’s appeal holding only the fact that the assessee had purchased new property within two years of the transfer. 3. The assessee objected

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)

1 to 66 and contended that the investment was made by the assessee in the residential property. Therefore, the same is eligible for deduction under section 50/54F of the Act. It was also contended by the learned AR that the depreciable assets, if the period of holding exceeds 36 months, are also eligible for such deduction under section 50/54F

SMT.MERCY GEORGE L/H OF SRI.GEORGE ABRAHAM,KOTTAYAM vs. THE ITO, WD-1, , KOTTAYAM

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

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

1. The Assessment order is wrong in law and on facts so far as prejudicial to the interest of the appellant. 2. The Appellant had not concealed any particulars of income. 3. The Appellant has purchased a residential house, and claimed deduction under the relevant section of the I.T.Act. The Act does not specifically states that for claiming such exemption

SRI. MAMMEN ADENETH PAPPY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO,, THIRUVALLA

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

house property before due date of furnishing of return of income and also had not deposited the balance amount in the capital gain account in the Bank. Therefore, the Assessing Officer restricted the allowance u/s. 54F of the Act to the extent of investment made before due date of filing of return u/s. 139(1) of the Act. The Assessing

THE ITO, WARD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.MARTIN JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

54F In respect of the new house property purchased 75,00,000 x 2787338/27495000) Rs. 7,60,321 Taxable Capital Gains Rs. 20,27,017 Gross Total Income (-) Rs. 2,65,315/- Net Taxable income NIL T.D.S. Rs.24,000 Tax refundable Rs. 24,000 5.3 The return was accompanied by a Profit and Loss A/c. and Balance Sheet in respect

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.E.J.SONY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

54F In respect of the new house property purchased 75,00,000 x 2787338/27495000) Rs. 7,60,321 Taxable Capital Gains Rs. 20,27,017 Gross Total Income (-) Rs. 2,65,315/- Net Taxable income NIL T.D.S. Rs.24,000 Tax refundable Rs. 24,000 5.3 The return was accompanied by a Profit and Loss A/c. and Balance Sheet in respect

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.PAUL, EDAKATTUKUDIYIL, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

54F In respect of the new house property purchased 75,00,000 x 2787338/27495000) Rs. 7,60,321 Taxable Capital Gains Rs. 20,27,017 Gross Total Income (-) Rs. 2,65,315/- Net Taxable income NIL T.D.S. Rs.24,000 Tax refundable Rs. 24,000 5.3 The return was accompanied by a Profit and Loss A/c. and Balance Sheet in respect

THEACIT, CIR-1(1),EKM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

54F In respect of the new house property purchased 75,00,000 x 2787338/27495000) Rs. 7,60,321 Taxable Capital Gains Rs. 20,27,017 Gross Total Income (-) Rs. 2,65,315/- Net Taxable income NIL T.D.S. Rs.24,000 Tax refundable Rs. 24,000 5.3 The return was accompanied by a Profit and Loss A/c. and Balance Sheet in respect

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.TOMY MATHEW PARTNER OF MATHAI SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

54F In respect of the new house property purchased 75,00,000 x 2787338/27495000) Rs. 7,60,321 Taxable Capital Gains Rs. 20,27,017 Gross Total Income (-) Rs. 2,65,315/- Net Taxable income NIL T.D.S. Rs.24,000 Tax refundable Rs. 24,000 5.3 The return was accompanied by a Profit and Loss A/c. and Balance Sheet in respect

THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.JOSE MATHEW, M/S.E.V.MTHAI & SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

54F In respect of the new house property purchased 75,00,000 x 2787338/27495000) Rs. 7,60,321 Taxable Capital Gains Rs. 20,27,017 Gross Total Income (-) Rs. 2,65,315/- Net Taxable income NIL T.D.S. Rs.24,000 Tax refundable Rs. 24,000 5.3 The return was accompanied by a Profit and Loss A/c. and Balance Sheet in respect

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.MATHAI XAVIER, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

54F In respect of the new house property purchased 75,00,000 x 2787338/27495000) Rs. 7,60,321 Taxable Capital Gains Rs. 20,27,017 Gross Total Income (-) Rs. 2,65,315/- Net Taxable income NIL T.D.S. Rs.24,000 Tax refundable Rs. 24,000 5.3 The return was accompanied by a Profit and Loss A/c. and Balance Sheet in respect

SRI.ESSA ISMAIL SAIT,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT,CIR-2(1),, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

54F In respect of the new house property purchased 75,00,000 x 2787338/27495000) Rs. 7,60,321 Taxable Capital Gains Rs. 20,27,017 Gross Total Income (-) Rs. 2,65,315/- Net Taxable income NIL T.D.S. Rs.24,000 Tax refundable Rs. 24,000 5.3 The return was accompanied by a Profit and Loss A/c. and Balance Sheet in respect

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

Section 54F of the Act with respect of expenses aggregating to INR.26,94,260/- since the same were incurred to make the residential property habitable. In this regard we find that the Assessing Officer had returned the following findings in Paragraph 6 and 7 of the Assessment Order: - *"6. The assessee has claimed deduction u/s.54F for investing the sales proceeds

SMT.HALIMA ZUBAIR,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

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

section 54F for the amount invested in this property.” 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is an individual, who is a dealer in tiles and sanitary items. She is also commission agent of seafood. For the assessment year 2011-2012, the return of income was filed on 30.09.2011 declaring total income at Rs.26

RAPHAEL JOHN (DECEASED),THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

1-4-2015, makes it very clear that the benefit of Section 54F of the Income-tax Act will be applicable to constructed, one residential house in India and that clarifies the situation in the present case, i.e. post amendment, viz., from 01-4-2015, the benefit of Section 54F will be applicable to one residential house in India. Prior

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. DR. RAMESH KUMAR ISWARA, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P. George, Am & George George K., Jm

1-4-2006 upto date of re-assessment (order dated 14-3- 2014). Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer in not granting exemption u/s. 54EC and 54F of the Act. The CIT(A) allowed relief in respect of chargeability of interest u/s. 234B