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)

disallowance could not be made as per the interpretation of the proviso to Section 54F (4). A sum of Rs.21

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

disallowing the claim of the appellant under Section 54F at Rs.48,26,66,960/- is not sustainable and it is hereby deleted." 5. Aggrieved, now Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed before us. We noted that the assessee, an individual, sold his shares of FCM Travel Solutions

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

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

disallowing the claim of the appellant under Section 54F at Rs.48,26,66,960/- is not sustainable and it is hereby deleted." 5. Aggrieved, now Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed before us. We noted that the assessee, an individual, sold his shares of FCM Travel Solutions

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 of the Act by\nobserving as under :-\n6.10 The appellant further submits that even otherwise the appellant was joint owner

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)

disallowance pertaining to exemption claimed u/s 54F of the Act Amounting to Rs 2,09,07,085.00 it is also most humbly submitted that: a) That the Provisions of Section 54F of the Act are being reproduced hereunder: 54F. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4

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)

disallowance pertaining to exemption claimed u/s 54F of the Act Amounting to Rs 2,09,07,085.00 it is also most humbly submitted that: a) That the Provisions of Section 54F of the Act are being reproduced hereunder: 54F. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4

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 being aggrieved by the learned CIT(A)’s order preferred an appeal before the learned ITAT [being ITA 3426/Del/2019], which was allowed by the learned ITAT by the impugned order. The present appeal by the Revenue

KUSUM DUBE,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), GURGAON

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrakusum Dube Vs. Ito Ward 2(3) C/O Kapil Goel Adv. Gurgaon, Income Tax F-26/124 Sector 7, Rohini Department, Phase V, Delhi - 110085 Udyog Vihar, Sector 19, Gurugram, Haryana 122016 Haryana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aewpd9787R Appellant .. Respondent

54F of the Act to the extent of Rs.15,63,566/- out of the disallowance made by the Ld. AO of Rs.105,67,271/- for Assessment Year 2015- 16. 2. The brief facts leading to the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 26.07.2015 declaring total income of Rs.66,070/- at Dibrugarh. The case was selected

ACIT CIRCLE-1(2), NEW DELHI vs. ASSOCIATED TECHNO PLASTICS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrakusum Dube Vs. Ito Ward 2(3) C/O Kapil Goel Adv. Gurgaon, Income Tax F-26/124 Sector 7, Rohini Department, Phase V, Delhi - 110085 Udyog Vihar, Sector 19, Gurugram, Haryana 122016 Haryana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aewpd9787R Appellant .. Respondent

54F of the Act to the extent of Rs.15,63,566/- out of the disallowance made by the Ld. AO of Rs.105,67,271/- for Assessment Year 2015- 16. 2. The brief facts leading to the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 26.07.2015 declaring total income of Rs.66,070/- at Dibrugarh. The case was selected

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

RAJ KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-58(4), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla

disallowance of exemption u/s. 54 of I.T. Act, holding that “Regarding the investment in new asset, I find that the appellant had not invested the eligible amount before the due date for filing the return of income and as such the appellant was required to deposit the relevant amount in the specified capital gains scheme to avail the benefit

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)

disallowance of capital gain of Rs. 28,94,757/- is patently wrong since the new property has been purchased and the investment has been made in the name of the appellant. The appellant also submits that as per the provisions of section 54F of IT Act there is provision that the new asset should be purchased in the name

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)

54F(4)) has been made ignoring the fact that the entire amount remained in Bank account and payment to the contractor was made after withdrawing the amount from the bank account. In alternative the exemption should has been allowed up to the time for filing the return u/s 139(4). 3. That Learned CIT(A) is wrong and unjustified

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)

54F(4)) has been made ignoring the fact that the entire amount remained in Bank account and payment to the contractor was made after withdrawing the amount from the bank account. In alternative the exemption should has been allowed up to the time for filing the return u/s 139(4). 3. That Learned CIT(A) is wrong and unjustified

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

4 Rs.1,26,00,000/- respectively on 11.04.2017. Both the properties were stated to be portion of plot no.H-53A Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. The Pr.CIT observed that the Assessee was wrongly allowed deductions for investment in two properties. 6.1 The Pr.CIT further observed that assessee had also deposited a sum of Rs.25 lakhs in Capital Gain Account Scheme

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)

Section 144C(13) of the Act dated 27/04/2023 by making 4 Anil Bhardwaj Zambia addition of Rs. 20,10,008/- as short term capital gain and further disallowed Rs. 80,14,041/- u/s 54 of the Act being 50% wife’s shares in the new house property. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C

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

4 ITA No.913/Del./2019 justify the claim of deduction under Section 54F of the Act by furnishing the following documents: a) Completion certificate of the residential house; b) Bills/vouchers of purchase of material for construction of the said residential house; c) Proof of funds paid for the expenditure; & d) Photo proof of construction. 5. In response to the show-cause