ITO,WARD-30(1), NEW DELHI vs. VINOD GUGNANI, NEW DELHI

In the result, grounds of Appeal of the Revenue fails, consequently the Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

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

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

1) Any profits or gains arising from the transfer 737 of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in sections 54, 54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F

SMT. ANITA MIGLANI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri O. P. Meena

gain and to deny exemption in respect of investment made in the purchase of the residential house as contained under section 54F(1)(a) of the Act is thus wrong, illegal and against the legal provisions contained under Section 54F(1)(a) of the Act. The CIT(A- IV), Kanpur misdirected him to simply calculate long term capital

SUNIL MIGLANI,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamblesunil Miglani Vs Dcit Kj-2, Kavi Nagar Central Circle New Delhi Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

gain on the sale of the property was claimed as exempt by the assessee in view of the provisions contained in Section 54F(1)(b) of the Act. The Assessing Officer while not disputing the claim of the assessee for exemption u/s 54F(1)(b) of the Act in respect of investment of long term capital

DCIT, CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SAHIL VACHANI, DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shriavdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2604/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2016-17)

section 54F of the Act against theLong-Term Capital Gains of Rs.9,01,50,051/-, the respondent/assessee made initial payment of Rs.7.00 Crores out of agreed purchase consideration of Rs.7.25 Crores for acquiring the residential property at plot No.25, Property No. 226 (old) 222/200 (New), Rajpur Road, Dehradunas per theagreement, dated27/29 July, 2016, with Trophy Estates Private Limited

RAMESH CHANDER BHASIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 53(5), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 54F of the I.T. Act, 1961 reads as under : “Capital gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house. 54F. (1

SMT. HARMINDER KAUR,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

capital gain scheme account within limit provided section 139(1) of the Act. (ii) The booking of flat is not purchase of flat because as per agreement to sale, construction of the flat was to be carried out and it was not completed till completion of assessment. (iii) The booking of the flat is also not construction because under CBDT

ARUN SHUNGLOO TRUST

1) Any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in sections 54, 54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F

ARUN SHUNGLOO TRUST

1) Any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in sections 54, 54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F

KUSUM SAHGAL,GURUGRAM vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-19(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Kusum Sahgal, Through Lr Shri Vs. Acit, Circle-19(2), Viney Sagar Sahgal, New Delhi Mg-2002, The Magnolias, Golf Course Road Dlf Phase-V, Gurugram, 122 002 Haryana Pan :Aatps3766J (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain. The assessee did not own more than one residential house. The word “ownership” mentions in proviso to section 54F(1

MANISH TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Manish Tyagi, Vs. Ito, House No. 131, Sector-6, Ward-1(4), Chiranjeev Vihar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan: Acgpt1413J (Appellant) (Respondent)

54F of the act. 4. Ld AO then proceeds to make assessment of income earned by Shri Ashok Tyagi in the hands of the assessee by invoking section 160 and 162 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as according to him assessee is a ‘representative assessee’ of Shri Ashok Tyagi and long term capital gain is chargeable

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ARJUN PURI, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.2310/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

capital gain and also allow the benefit of Section 54F of the Act.” 6. The Revenue on ground Nos. 1

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. MOHINDER PURI, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.2310/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

capital gain and also allow the benefit of Section 54F of the Act.” 6. The Revenue on ground Nos. 1

SNEH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-32(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on both counts on merit as well as jurisdictional issue raised by the assessee in the additional ground of appeal

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

capital gain for the purposes of section 54, and the net consideration for the purposes of section 54F, is appropriated towards purchase of a plot and towards construction of a residential house thereon, the aggregate cost 15 should be considered for determining the quantum of deduction under section 54/54F" Adverse observation by Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) :- 1

ANITA MIGLANI,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

gain on the sale of the property was claimed as exempt by the assessee in view of the provisions contained in Section 54F(1)(b) of the Act. The Assessing Officer while not disputing the claim of the assessee for exemption u/s 54F(1)(b) of the Act in respect of investment of long term capital

SH. BRIJ BHUSHAN TAYAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

1) and 54F of the Income-tax Act discloses that, a non residential 10 building can be sold, the capital gain of which can be invested in a residential building to seek exemption of capital gain tax. However, the proviso to section

SUNIL MALHOTRA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4743/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sunil Malhotra, Vs Acit, D-279, Defence Colony, Circle-54(1), New Delhi-110024 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaopm5378F Assessee By : Sh. N. S. Bhatnagar, Adv. Revenue By : Dr. Anjula Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.04.2020 Order Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-18, New Delhi Dated 04.07.2016. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee: “1. That The Learned Ito Erred In Law In Denying The Benefit Admissible U/S 54 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By Wrongly Relying Upon Clause 2(A) Of Section 54F Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which On The Facts Of The Case In Not Applicable.

54F are as under: “Section 54: [(1)] [[Subject to the provisions of sub- section (2), where, in the case of an assessee51 being an individual or a Hindu undivided family], the capital gain

GOPAL SARAN DARBARI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

54F cannot be denied even if the deposit in capital gain account was out of borrowed fund and not out of capital gain. It was held that money has no color and all i.e. required is that investment be made in new house within the specified time. 9.5 In the case of K.S. Ramachandran vs ITO (ITAT, Chennai), the ITAT