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. In J.R. Suhramanya Bhat (supra). Karnataka High Court noticed language of Section 54 which stipulated that the assessee should within one year Kapil Kumar Agarwal Vs DCIT from the dale of transfer purchase, or within a period of two years thereafter, construct

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

4 Urban Estate Kurukshetra – Residential\nProperty owned by the appellant prior to family settlement (Here-in-after\nreferred as “residential Property – 1, Kurukshetra\")\nAs per the family Settlement, the said property would be transferred to Aakash\nGoyal (son of the appellant) who is in the absolute possession of said property\nat the time of family settlement).\niv. House

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

property is also considered as residential house in the context of proviso to Section 54F of the I.T. Act, 1961. ? Section 54F of the I.T. Act, 1961 reads as under : “Capital gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house. 54F. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4

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 of the Act does not stand fulfilled in the instant case. Further, it was submitted that the assessee was only 50% owner 4 | P a g e of the said property and hence cannot be construed as absolute owner of the property. Consequentially, he cannot be held to be owning any 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)

4 Ram Mohan Rai ACIT 6612/Del/2016 AY 2013-14 of which one is under joint ownership and therefore, the petitioner has not fulfilled the condition for claiming exemption under Section 54F of the Act, which states that within a period of three years, the assessee should have constructed a residential house, which has to be interpreted as one residential house

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 years from

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

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

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)

house building. Held, yes- Whether however, assessee would be eligible for proportionate deduction as per section 54F, since entire sale proceeds were not used for new assets. " Without prejudice to the above impugned disallowance could not be made as per the interpretation of the proviso to Section 54F (4). A sum of Rs.21,66,00,000/- was claimed as deduction

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

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

4 Omkar Chadha violation of requisite conditions stipulated in clause (a)(ii) to Sec. 54F. 7. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. We are taking up the issue of complete denial of exemption u/s 54F by the ld. CIT (A). The Section 54F reads as under: “[Provided that nothing contained

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’).

4 years – Whether since assessee had invested money within stipulated period and delay in obtaining occupancy certificate was beyond control of assessee, assessee would be entitled for deduction under section 54 – Held, yes [Para 3] [In favour of assessee].” f) Similarly we also rely upon the following case laws: i) In the case of CIT v. Mrs. Shakuntala Devi

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.

property or constructing the 8 ITO Vs. Vinod Gugnani residential house within the period stipulated in Section 54F(1). The proviso to Section 54F puts an embargo on the application of Section 54F to cases which are mentioned in the said proviso. That is to be eligible for the benefit under Section 54F(1) the assessee should not be owning

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

Section 54F is a beneficial provision for promoting construction of residential houses and has to be construed liberally. Kerala, Delhi, Allahabad, Calcutta and Hyderabad High Courts have taken a view that usage of the property has to be considered in determining whether it is a residential property or a commercial property and Madras High Court in C.H.KESVA RAO supra

SMT. HARMINDER KAUR,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

property has been made prior to due date of filing of return of income under section 139 (4) of the Act i.e 31/03/2013, therefore Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble High Court reproduced above, we are of the opinion that the assessee cannot be denied deduction on the ground that amount of sale consideration has not been invested

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

4,07,88,000/- which was applied towards purchase of residential house property in accordance with the provisions of 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

4, Farm House, Civic Centre, New Delhi for house tax assessment alongwith affidavit at the time relating to imposition of house tax in support of completion of the construction and occupation of the house by the appellant. The appellant has submitted that it has made all the compliance before the AO alongwith original bills but AO has not recorded

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

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

4 Andrey Andreev of capital asset should be invested in residential house situated in India, therefore, benefit of Section 54F of Act before its amendment could be extended to residential 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