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)

54F. The only distinction being that Section 54 applies to investment in a new house where the original asset sold was/is residential property

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

property. It is submitted that the concept of\nownership under section 541 of the Act of residential house talks about absolute\nownership and not co-ownership or joint ownership, it is settled position of the law for\nthe purpose of section 54F

RAJEEV VASUDEVA,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 3(1) , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: us, the only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the action of the learned AO in denying the claim of exemption under section 54F of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

section 54F, it is seen that the expression "assessee owns, on the date of transfer of the original asset, any residential house" is used in the proviso with reference to "the residential house, the income of which is chargeable under the head 'Income from house property

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. The only dispute in appeal is – “Whether the transfer of property by assessee to his son vide Agreement to Sell Dated 01.11.2013 in respect of property of 1/601, Malibu Town, Gurgaon is valid transfer or not ? And Whether Joint ownership of property is also considered as residential house

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)

house should be pg. 3 Ram Mohan Rai ACIT 6612/Del/2016 AY 2013-14 understood in a sense that building should be of residential in nature and "a" should not be understood to indicate a singular number. The combined reading of sections 54(1) and 54F of the Income-tax Act discloses that, a non-residential building can be sold

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

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

SRI OMKAR CHADHA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 346/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Omkar Chadha, Vs Income Tax Officer, I-39, Jangpura Extn., Ward-54(3), New Delhi-110014 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaepc8329G Assessee By : Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.07.2020

Section 54F to claim deduction for more than one residential house. If the assessee is holding 'a residential house' called building-A and on sale of such house if the assessee acquires property

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

54F will be applicable to one residential house in India. Prior to the amendment it was clear that a residential house would include multiple residential units. 13 20. Further as per the provisions of section 54 it cannot be denied that the new residential House Property

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’).

property within the period allowed u/s 54F of the Act. 21. In the similar situation, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sambandam Udaykumar (2012) 19 taxmann.com 17 held that section 54F is a beneficial provision for promoting construction of residential house

YASH SUNEJA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-42(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

house property and 1 floor was actually claimed to have been rented; that the property was not capitalised as business asset and no depreciation was claimed in respect of the same; that the proviso (b) to section 54F

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)

property at N 50, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi on 09.09.2015. However, Ld. AO taxed this amount in the year under consideration vide assessment order dated 26.l2.20 18 on the ground that the assessee had not completed the construction of the house within three years as per section 54F

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

house property."] 6.6 As per the provisions of Section 54F, deduction is allowable if investments is made in a residential

SH. ADARSH KUMAR SWARUP,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. DCIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed in the

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2011-12

house properties with the assessee apart from new property purchased during the year, which are as under:- Delhi Kothi 5,55,504/- Mussorie Flat 4,77,500/- As per proviso of section 54F

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)

property during the period specified under Section 54F of the Act in order to get benefit there under. Section 54F of the Act nowhere envisages that the sale consideration obtained by the assessee from the original capital asset is mandatorily required to be utilized for the purchase or construction of a house

SMT. RITU SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

properties purchased before due date of filing belated return i.e. 31.03.2014. This contention of the Ld. AO has been assailed by the Ld. AR on the ground that the assessee had filed her return for AY 2012- 13 under section 139(4) of the Act on 25.10.2013 well before 31.03.2014 9 upto which date she could file her belated return

ANDREY ANDREEV,MUMBAI vs. CIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-(03), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2002/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Andrey Andreev, Vs Cit(Intl. Taxation)-03, C/O Sushil Budhia Associates, New Delhi Ca, 1103, Level 11, Universal Majestic, Behind Rbk International School, Ghatkopar Mankhurd, Link Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400043 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aglpa5288P Assessee By : Sh. Y. K. Kapur, Adv. & Sh. Bhushan Kapur, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.07.2022

house purchased outside India too. 10. Owing to the judgments, an amendment has been brought in Section 54F vide Finance Act, 2014. 11. We have gone through the amendment brought out by the legislature wherein it was mentioned that with effect from 01.04.2015 for claiming benefit of exemption from payment of capital gain accruing on account of sale of property

VINAY CHAUDHARY,PITAMPURA vs. ACIT INT TAX 1(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: “Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

54F of the Act by the ld. Assessing Officer on the direction of the ld. DRP. The appellant has earned LTCG of Rs4,07,88,000/- which he has applied towards purchase of residential house property in accordance with the provisions of section

CIT vs. RAVINDER KUMAR ARORA

Section 54F of the Act on account of purchase of a new house property. The assessee vide reply dated 19.11.2009 field