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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

house property on or before the due date provided under section 139(1) for filing of return of income and the assessee had made investment in purchase of property only on 18.10.2022 and also made investment in capital gains deposit account scheme on 28.10.2022 beyond the due date prescribed under the Act and in view of provisions of section 54F

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.:

54F on account of purchase of new house property. The Assessing Officer noted that though all the payments were made by the assessee, the residential house was purchased jointly in the names of the assessee and his wife. The Assessing Officer, then referred to section

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

house at the time of claiming\ndeduction under Section 54F of the Act; and (ii) based on the\nexamination of the SRO certificate, GST and Municipal Tax receipts\nto verify as to for what purpose the subject properties

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

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

SRIDHAR REDDY BAYAPU,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

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 property

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

54F of the Act, the assessee shall invest sale consideration for purchase of another residential house property (new house property), one year before the date of transfer or within two years from the date of transfer of original asset. In other words, in order to get deduction under 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 Act, if he had more than one residential house in his name before investing. In the present case, the assessee has shown the house property

SURENDER KUMAR BHOJWANI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, INTL. TAXTION -1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

house” as provided in section 54F of the Act? 13. Before dealing with the issue, we deem it apposite to observe that the assessee had not raised the claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act either in his original return of income or the return of income filed 11 Surender Kumar Bhojwani vs. ITO (Int. Taxn

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

54F. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer held that the 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

RADHIKA KURRA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14 Radhika Kurra, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 2(2), Pan – Aedpk 3506Q Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pvss Prasad Revenue By: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey Date Of Hearing: 29/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/07/2021

house on the date of transfer and has disallowed the exemption which was claimed under section 54F of the Act. 1.4 In this regard appellant would respectfully submit that, at the time of sale of the 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

properties only. As per the provisions of section 54 F of the LT. Act deduction is not allowable if the assessee owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset. Thus, the appellant is not entitled for deduction u/ s 54F

GUNDALA MAHENDER,,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(3), HYDERABAD

The appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / निर्धारण वर्ा / अपीलधर्थी / प्रत् यर्थी /

section 54F of the Act, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the file of the learned Assessing Officer for deciding the said issue afresh after conducting necessary enquiry and directed the assessee to produce necessary evidence to show that the property constructed was a residential house

GUNDALA SARVOTTAM RAO,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(3), HYDERABAD

The appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / निर्धारण वर्ा / अपीलधर्थी / प्रत् यर्थी /

section 54F of the Act, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the file of the learned Assessing Officer for deciding the said issue afresh after conducting necessary enquiry and directed the assessee to produce necessary evidence to show that the property constructed was a residential house

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

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

Section 54F will be applicable to one residential house in India. Prior to the said amendment, it is clear that a residential house would include multiple flats/residential units as in the present case where the assessee has got five residential flats. We may also mention here that all the Authorities below have clearly understood that the agreement signed

INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. ARUNA GULLAPALLI, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Aruna Gullapalli, (International Taxation) – 1, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Bfhpg9489L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Kumar Adithya Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.01.2023

property in the appellant’s name did not take place within the time stipulated u/s 54F. Here arises a legal complication. 12.2 The heading of section 54F is as under : Capital gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD vs. IQBAL ALI KHAN , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.505 /Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Asstt. Cit Vs. Shri Iqbal Ali Khan, Circle 6(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aalpi8951P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/01/2024

property for the residential purpose within the time granted by the statute and further there is no evidence to show that the assessee has invested in raising of the construction of a residential house, therefore, in our opinion, the assessee is not entitled to any relief u/s 54F. We have examined the provisions of section

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), HYDERABAD vs. PANDURANGA RAO VADDEPALLY , HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Bhupathi Rao Income-Tax, Circle – 11(1), Vaddepally, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan-Aoipv 4558A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Panduranga Rao Income-Tax, Circle – 11(1), Vaddepally, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan-Anppp 8702J (Appellant) (Respondent)

property should be of residential nature and the fact that the residential house consists of several independent units cannot be an impediment to grant relief u/s. 54F even if such independent units are on different floors. " 2. CIT vs Syed Ali Adil ( Decision of AP High Court dated 20.12.2012): In this case though the decision was rendered in the context

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), HYDERABAD vs. BHUPATHI RAO VADDEPALLY , HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Bhupathi Rao Income-Tax, Circle – 11(1), Vaddepally, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan-Aoipv 4558A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Panduranga Rao Income-Tax, Circle – 11(1), Vaddepally, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan-Anppp 8702J (Appellant) (Respondent)

property should be of residential nature and the fact that the residential house consists of several independent units cannot be an impediment to grant relief u/s. 54F even if such independent units are on different floors. " 2. CIT vs Syed Ali Adil ( Decision of AP High Court dated 20.12.2012): In this case though the decision was rendered in the context