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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA vs. AJAY GOEL, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowance of\nRs.1,54 28,619/- being the index cost of acquisition made in the impugned\nassessment order.\"\n6. After considering the detailed submissions of the assessee, ld. CIT (A)\nallowed the claim of the assessee under section 54F

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

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

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

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

ANIL BHARDWAJ,ZAMBIA vs. DCIT-ACIT-INT-TAX GURGAON, GURGAON

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1250/Del/2024 (A.Y 2020-21) Anil Bhardwaj Dcit/Acit 5994, Benakale Road, P. O Vs. International Tax, Box No. 31776, Northmead, Office Of Acit-Dcit Int- Near Rhodes Park School, Tax, Gurgaon Lusaka-10101, Zambia, Ny (Respondent) Pan No. Anlpb2321F (Appellant)

disallowance of deduction under section 54 to assessee. f) N Ram Kumar vs. ACIT [2012] 25 taxmann.com 337 (Hyd. ITAT ) - The assessee purchase d a flat in the name of her Simran Bagga minor daughter and claimed deduction u/s 54F

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX –V vs. KAPIL NAGPAL

Section 54F amounting to Rs. 2,21,69,090 should not be disallowed and why penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) should

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.

disallowance of Rs. 5,70,95,075/-. The Ld. AO was of the opinion that the assessee has failed to deposit the sale consideration in CGAS before the due date of filing of income under section 139 (1) of the Act and added back the same to assessee’s total income as Long Term Capital Gain. Aggrieved by the assessment

ITO, WARD-29(5), NEW DELHI vs. AMRISH GUPTA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2015-16

disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction under Section 54F of the Act. 6. Contesting the aforesaid disallowance made by the Assessing

GIRISH MOHAN,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshgirish Mohan, Vs. Acit, 725, Udyog Vihar, Phase-2, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaqpm4017P Assessee By : Sh. P. C. Yadav, Adv Sh. Raghav Sharma, Ca Revenue By: Sh. Vipul Kashyap, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement /07/2023

section 54F of the Act, if it otherwise a residential house, and the assessee is found to have constructed a residential house, whatever might be the house it had been put to, the assessee can be said to have fulfilled the conditions envisaged u/s 54F of the Act. 11. Further, the assessee has also relied on the order

SHRI INAMUL HAQ,SAHARANPUR vs. ITO, SAHARANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Inamul Haq S/O Sh. Mohd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Yamin, Vill.Megh Chhappar, Ward-2. Ambalaa Road, Saharanpur (U.P) Saharanpur Pan: Aaiph2840K (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of exemption under Section 54F claimed by the assessee against the Long Term Capital Gain is as under: “a) That

JAGDISH PARSHAD JAIN,PANIPAT vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE KARNAL, KARNAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Inamul Haq S/O Sh. Mohd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Yamin, Vill.Megh Chhappar, Ward-2. Ambalaa Road, Saharanpur (U.P) Saharanpur Pan: Aaiph2840K (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of exemption under Section 54F claimed by the assessee against the Long Term Capital Gain is as under: “a) That

KANWAR SINGH TANWAR,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 19(1), DELHI, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the purchase and construction of a residential house on agricultural land, arising from the sale of unlisted shares. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed