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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

54F, the assessee has furnished\ndeed of the property at One North Condominium, Pune but no document to\nprove cost of acquisition was furnished. On perusal of ITR for F. Y. 2019-20\nof the assessee, the assessee has shown income from house property from 3\nproperties, hence the conditions laid out in proviso to section

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)

property and provisions of Section 54F were/are applicable to all other assets, not being a residential house. Kapil Kumar Agarwal Vs DCIT In J.R. Subramanya Bhat (supra), Karnataka High Court noticed language of Section 54 which stipulated that the assessee should within one year from the date of transfer purchase, or within a period of two years thereafter, construct

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.

3 more angle. On reading of the proviso to 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

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

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

house property as per Section 54F of the Act whereby the entire Capital Gains was claimed as exempt. (2) As on 31, March 2013, the Appellant was the owner of two residential properties viz. 910/17 Defence Colony, Gurgaon and 1/601, Malibu Town, Gurgaon, both of which were owned jointly by him with his wife, Smt Savita Bhasin. (3

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’).

section 54F, the assessee need to purchase the residential house within one year before or two years after the sale or construct a residential house within three years from the date of original sale. The issue under consideration is that assessee could not complete the construction of the 20 residential house due to the reason that M/s. Chintel

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 purchased / constructed should not be transferred within a period of 3

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

house over and above the existing residential property of the appellant at JungPura extension, spending in the process Rs. 24.2 lakh for additional construction of area 40 m2. In this backdrop, the appellant has made the computation of capital gains and the claim of exemption under section 54F as under: 3

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)

Section 54F of the Act implies a complete property which is capable of being resided without infringement. 1/4th undivided and non- demarcated 1/4th share in one single property could not be held to be a property. "Residential Property for all practical purposes should be a complete identified and habitable property. 6. That the order appealed against is contrary

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)

Section 54F of the Act implies a complete property which is capable of being resided without infringement. 1/4th undivided and non- demarcated 1/4th share in one single property could not be held to be a property. "Residential Property for all practical purposes should be a complete identified and habitable property. 6. That the order appealed against is contrary

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)

54F would apply not in respect of purchase of house property but as construction of house (3 years not 2 years). Further it is submitted that assessee constructed a new residential house and same is discussed by Ld. AO in detail in para 5.9 to para 5.15 of the assessment order Ld. CIT(A) in para 7.0 at page

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

3 floors and the 75% of the ground floor remains residential house, as no other use was permitted; that the assessee himself was showing the income from this property under the head 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

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

3 of section 54F refers to imposition of capital gains tax, if the asset is transferred within a period of three years and such contemplated transfer can be of a house existing in India. Since the word ‘new asset’ i.e. new residential house has been used together with the words ‘shall be deemed to be income chargeable under the head

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 a copy of the purchase deed through which a residential house bearing No.8, Block No.7, situated in layout plan of Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi was purchased on 01.3.2007 for a total consideration of `3

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

property was proved by filing electricity bill dated 6th April, 2011 and bank statement for the period 1st April, 2010 to 25th May, 2011, which are enclosed in assessee's paper book. It is a fact that the assessee has claimed the deduction under Section 54F of the Act and not under Section 54 as raised in the grounds

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.” 3. Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR appearing on behalf of the Department submitted that the assessee in the return of income had claimed the benefit of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act, without actual purchase or construction of a new asset i.e. a residential house. The assessee had merely entered into an agreement for construction

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

3)Less: Properties purchased before due date of filing return of income (Belated) 35,04,400 ____________ (allowed by AO upto payment made before due Date of filing original return i.e. 31.07.2012) 21,72,752 ______________ Addition as per Assessment order 11,49,116 _______________ ii) The details of properties purchased before filing belated return are as under:- Particulars of property Date

ASHISH DHAWAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiashish Dhawan, Vs. Acit, 55-A, Jor Bagh, Circle-31(1), New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Adlpd9621N (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property from total cost of construction by alleging that these costs are not covered within the provisions of section 54F of the Act. 3

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

Bench: The Learned

3. The subject matter of controversy in the appeals before the learned ITAT centres around the Assessee’s claim for deduction under Section 54F of the Act. 4. The Assessee filed her return of income for AY 2011-12 on 31.12.2011, declaring an income of ₹70,87,301/-. The Assessee also claimed a deduction of ₹90 crores under Section 54F