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)

Section 54F of Act for an amount of Rs.21,28,34,670/- on investment in residential property with “The Camellias” 4 in DLF Ltd. despite owning more than one residential property. Share transfer expenses of Rs.44,10,634/- were disallowed

ACIT CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI vs. RAHUL NATH, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

54F of the Act on the given facts and circumstances of the case. For this, the Revenue has raised various grounds which are argumentative and exhaustive and hence, will be covered in the decision. 3. Brief facts are that the Assessing Officer completed assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act and disallowed

KAPIL KUMAR AGARWAL,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishikapil Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Dcit, C/O. Ipsaa House Anm & Circle-1(1), Associates, J021A, Mayfiled Gurgaoon Gardens, Sector-51, Gurgaon Pan: Aacpa2412L (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance on account of deduction as claimed by the assessee under section 54F of INR 7985761/–. 2. The brief facts

RAHUL NATH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

54F of the Act on the given facts and circumstances of the case. For this, the Revenue has raised various grounds which are argumentative and exhaustive and hence, will be covered in the decision. 3. Brief facts are that the Assessing Officer completed assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act and disallowed

SMT. VATSALA ASTHANA,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Vatsala Asthana, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Dc-97, Maya Enclave, Hari Ward-49(4), New Delhi Nagar, New Delhi Pan :Aefpa4935D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sanjeev Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G. Johnson, Sr.Dr

disallowing claim of the assessee under section 54F of the Act. In ground No. 2, the assessee is aggrieved with

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 vs. LATA GOEL

Bench: The Learned

disallowance under Section 54F of the Act in terms of the order dated 18.03.2019 passed under Section 250 of the Act. The Assessee

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 vs. LATA GOEL

Bench: The Learned

disallowance under Section 54F of the Act in terms of the order dated 18.03.2019 passed under Section 250 of the Act. The Assessee

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 vs. LATA GOEL

Bench: The Learned

disallowance under Section 54F of the Act in terms of the order dated 18.03.2019 passed under Section 250 of the Act. The Assessee

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05 , DELHI vs. DEEPAK KOTHARI , KANPUR

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

54F" is disallowed if the assessee "Owns" more than 1 residential house. That in the case of the appellant the appellant only had a proportionate 1/4th "Right" in the Property and the "Ownership" of the property was transferred on a later date in the month of March 2017 when the property was "mutated". The disallowance under Section

DEEPAK KATHARI,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-5, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

54F" is disallowed if the assessee "Owns" more than 1 residential house. That in the case of the appellant the appellant only had a proportionate 1/4th "Right" in the Property and the "Ownership" of the property was transferred on a later date in the month of March 2017 when the property was "mutated". The disallowance under Section

RAJNI KUMAR WIFE OF SHRI BRIG. NARENDER KUMAR H.NO.394, SECTOR-21, GURGAONN,GURGAON vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1), GURGAON, GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarrajni Kumar, Vs. Ito, Ward 3 (1), W/O Shri Brig. Narender Kumar, Gurgaon. House No.394, Sector 21, Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Ayypk1781A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Sr Date Of Hearing : 19.08.2025 Date Of Order : 17.09.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 27.09.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 & The Assessment Order Was Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’).

disallowance.” d) ACIT vs Vinay Girish Bajpai in ITA no. 7676/Mum/2019 order dated 01.02.2022 (Mum Bench) “11. Upon careful consideration, we find that assessee has complied with the condition mention under section 54 of the IT Act to claim the exemption. As pointed out by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee above, the handing over of the possession was delayed

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)

section 54F on ground that construction was not complete within specified period." • Subramanian Swaminathan v. ACIT, [2023] 152 taxmann.com 72 (Delhi- Trib.) "Whether since amounts for purchase of property and construction thereon were paid duly within relevant period, as prescribed under law and that too from Capital Gains Account, disallowance

RAJIV MADHOK,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

disallowance of the claim of Rs.2,07,62,580/- made in terms of the provisions contained in section 54F of the Income

DCIT, CC, GZBD , GZBD vs. ANJALI MITTAL , GZBD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Smt. Anjali Mittal, Income Tax, B-7, Ashok Nagar, Central Circle, Ghaziabad-201 001. Ghaziabad. Pan Aigpm4257R (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 54F(1)(b) of the Act, and computed the exempt value of capital gain at Rs. 14,93,596/- as against the assessee’s claim of Rs. 28,94,757/- by recording his findings in para 6.4 to 6.8 as under:- “6.4 I have carefully perused the observation of the AO in the matter of disallowance

CIT vs. RAVINDER KUMAR ARORA

Section 54F of the Act as against total claim of `3,18,59,276/- made by the assessee. The AO allowed claim only to the extent of `1,59,29,638/- and the balance 50% being `1,59,29,638/- was disallowed

RAM MOHAN RAI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2 and 3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiram Mohan Rai, Vs. Acit, A-8/25, Vansant Vihar, Circle-33(1), New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaapr0728C (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of deduction under section 54 of the income tax act. Consequently, assessment under section 143 (3) of the income tax act was passed on 24/02/2016 determining total income of the assessee at to Rs. 14230750/- against a returned income of Rs. 7648330/–. Assessee, aggrieved with the order of the Ld. assessing officer preferred an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner

ANJU AHUJA,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT CIRCLE 49(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 54F of the Act and accordingly same should be disallowed. 6.2 As further observed, the assessee has also failed

SANGEETA UBEROI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaisangeeta Oberai Acit A B-10A, Greater Kailas-I, Circle-23(1), New Delhi. Vs. Room No. 190, C. R. Building, Gir/Pan: Aagpu8313G New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 54F comprised of following amounts: Cost of land : Rs. 41, 72, 543/- Commission to broker : 37, 570/- Rs. 42, 11, 113/- Less cost of construction : Rs. 1, 58, 465/- 4. Assessing officer disallowed