ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. KESAVA KUMAR KUNAPUREDDY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Sections 54 to 54GB of the Act up to 31.03.2023 vide Circular No. 01/2023, dated 06.01.2023. Since the assessee has proved the completion of the house property

DCIT., (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. SYAMA REDDY MALI REDDY, HYDERABAD

Section 54 was to give relief to a person who had transferred his\nresidential house and had purchased another residential house within\ntwo years of transfer or had purchased a residential house one year\nbefore transfer. It was only the excess amount not used for making\npurchase or construction of the property

DIWAKAR REDDY CHINTAKUNTALA ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Section 54 was to give relief to a person who had transferred his residential house and had purchased another residential house within two years of transfer or had purchased a residential house one year before transfer. It Page 6 of 10 ITA No. 1560 & 2033/Hyd/2018 was only the excess amount not used for making purchase or construction of the property

INDUMATI CHINTAKUNTALA ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Section 54 was to give relief to a person who had transferred his residential house and had purchased another residential house within two years of transfer or had purchased a residential house one year before transfer. It Page 6 of 10 ITA No. 1560 & 2033/Hyd/2018 was only the excess amount not used for making purchase or construction of the property

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. SANJAY CHOWDARY GADDIPATI, HYDERABAD

property was\nexempt under Section. 54 of the Act. For the sake of clarity, the\nobservations of the Hon'ble High Court are culled out as under:\n“4. In the alternative, the assessee pleaded before the Income-\ntax Officer that he started the construction of another\nresidential house

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, WARANGAL vs. GYANA KUMARI ROJANALA , WARANGAL

In the result the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 54 only requires that the property should be of residential nature and the fact that the residential house consists

MAHARSHI GOGINENI ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Section 54 was to give relief to a person who had transferred his residential house and had purchased another residential house within two years of transfer or had purchased a residential house one year before transfer. It was only the excess amount not used for making purchase or construction of the property

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. MALAYADRI LAXMI NARASIMHAM MULLAPATI, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

54 and 54F, wherein, it was observed that the section permits purchase of new house one year before the sale of the old house makes it clear that such utilization is not possible, according to the CIT(A) the requirement of section is that new house property

ANITHA BOBBA,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2008-09 Smt. Bobba Anitha, Vs. Acit, Hyderabad. Circle-6(1), Pan: Bivpb 4181 K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Siva Kumar Revenue By: Shri N. Srikanth, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/01/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/02/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

property towards the purchase of another residential house within the stipulated period as per Section 54 of the Act, she would

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. NARASIMHA REDDY DUTHALA, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

property continued to be shown as owned by the assessee. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CT(A) has erred is not considering the residential house purchased on 19.01.2021 in A.Y 2020-21, where in another 54F claim was made. 5. Without prejudice to the above contentions, CIT(A) ought to have

JOSEPH KIRAN KUMAR REDDY BASANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2015-16 Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Joseph Kiran Kumar Reddy Income Tax, Basani, Circle 5(1), C/O. Pary & Co., Chartered Hyderabad. Accountants, No.6, 2Nd Floor, 8-2-703/Vj/6, Vijay Villa, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500034, Telangana. Pan : Agcpb8082B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vamsi Krishna Reddy, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Karthik Manickam, Sr.Ar. Date Of Hearing: 29.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.10.2024

Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Rs. 76,83,990/- for purchase of another residential house property

BOLLINENI KRISHNA KUMARI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

54 of the LT. Act. Further the contention that there are no photographs attached to sale deed in respect of properties purchased in year 2003 is not acceptable because both in the purchase deeds and sale deeds, it was clearly mentioned as an open plot only. The small open structure cannot be treated as a residential house. 7.4 The section

RACHIT V SHAH,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-7(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 54F of the I T Act. During the relevant period the assessee was not the owner of the residential property although he had full control over the property. Before the AO, the appellant has stated that his father is free to gift this property to any other person. Thus, I find that that the assessee has hypothetically attempted

SANTOSH KIRON AEDMA, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year: 2010-11

section 54 only requires that the property should be of residential nature and the fact that the residential house consists

SURENDRA BABU SABBINENI,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

properties at S.No.2 to 6 fall under the category of residential houses and therefore, the case of the assessee is hit by proviso (a)(i) of section 54F of the I.T. Act. He therefore, disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54F at Rs. 9,54

AHMED ALAM KHAN,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman(Virtual Hearing) & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

house property, since there is no reference to any municipal assessment number or any electricity service connection number or any HMWSS connection number for the purpose of drinking and sewage supply mentioned in the registered document for the said residential property on the sale of which exemption under section 54

KAMLESH RANKA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTL. TAXATION-II, , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2012-13 Kamlesh Ranka, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Intl. Taxation-Ii, Pan: Acbpr 3953 N Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri D. Satyanarayana Revenue By: Sri Nilanjan Dey Date Of Hearing: 22/07/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/09/2019

section (4), he was entitled to fulfil the conditions for exemption U/s. 54 up to March 30, 1998. The assessee was entitled to exemption U/s. 54 on the entire capital gains on the sale of his house property

ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. FAZLUNNISA BEGUM, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

house property at Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. In fact she entered into a development agreement with a builder whereby the assessee was entitled to 51% of the total build up area i.e., 8 residential flats. 3. Assessee claimed exemption u/s 54 of the Act on the ground that 8 residential flats allotted to her are meant for her residential purpose and they