RAMAUTAR SARAF (HUF),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 59(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

property. We note that the assessee has started the construction\nof the house within three years and therefore, the exemption u/s 54\nof the Act cannot be denied to the assessee on the ground that the\nconstruction of the house was not completed within the stipulated\nperiod. The case of the assessee find support from the decision of the\nHon

RAJIB CHAKRABORTY,KOLKATA vs. ITO- WARD-30(3), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 54F can not be denied on the ground that the 10 I.T.A. No.1279/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Rajib Chakraborty. assessee has not deposited the long term capital gain in the specified bank account because the assessee has invested the amount of capital gain for construction of house in the residential property

MAYURA MOHTA,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 29,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle-29 Mayura Mohta Aaykar Bhavan Dakshin, 2, Sumer Trinity Towers 202, Tower-I, New Prabhadevi Road, Gariahat Road (South), Vs. Prabha Devi, Mumbai-400 025 Kolkata-700031, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aevpm3232R Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2025

house property and not purchase, therefore, the date of completion of construction is to be looked into which is as per provision of section 54 of the LT. Act.In this case also assessee has booked an under Mayura Mohta; A.Y. 2017-18 construction flat and same was handed over to the assessee on completion of construction. 22. Honourable Bombay high

SIDDHARTH PAHWA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-33(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

Section 54F of the Act with Standard Charted Bank, hence, the allegation made against your appellant do not hold good. 9. That your appellant further submits that out of the LTCG earned, investment made for the purchase of a new House Property

SHUVRO CHATTARAJ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT , BURDWAN

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2015-16

property is the cost to the donor is to be allowed after considering the indexation, as applicable. (d) Since, the assessee had invested in the bonds of NHAI, therefore, the deduction as claimed u/s 54EC was to be allowed in AY 2015-16. Depending upon the year of completion of the house, the deduction under section 54F

ARUNAVA BHATTACHARJEE ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 9(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.203/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Arunava Bhattacharjee…………………………………..........….…… Appellant P 190/1, Bidhan Nagar Road, Ultadanga, Kolkata-700067. [Pan: Aeipb7392A] Vs. Acit, Circle-9(2), Kolkata….....…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 20, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 09, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.02.2021 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit’] Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Ld. Pcit Observed From The Assessment Records That The Assessee Had Sold A Guest House, Located At Ganganagar On 20.02.2016 At Rs.4,50,00,000/- Which Was Acquired On 01.12.2007. The Assessee Computed Long Term Capital Gain Of Rs.2,00,26,945/- From The Sale Of The Aforementioned Property & Out Of The Said Capital Gain, The Assessee Had Claimed A Deduction Of Rs.1,17,03,326/- U/S.54Ec In Itr. But In Its Revised Computation The Assessee Had

property at 190/1 Biddhan Nagar Road, Kolkata-67, (2) Flat No.2601 Height Tower 8, Uniworld City, Rajarhal, Newtown, Kol-156 and (3) Flat No. 2201, Height Tower 8. Uniworld City, Rajarhat, New town, Kol-156 during the F.Y. 2015-16. But as per sub- section 1(b) of Section 54F, deduction u/s. 54F is not allowable if the assessee owns

BASABDUTTA DUTTA. ,BANKURA vs. ITO,WARD- 3(1), KENDUADIHI, , KENDUADIHI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.868/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Basabdutta Dutta…………………..……………………....………....Appellant Kayasthapara, P.O+Dist – Bankura, Pin-722101. [Pan: Adtpd8748C] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Bankura….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate & D.K. Sen, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sallong Yaden, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 11, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.07.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A)(Nfac) In Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Erred In Confirming Disallowance On Account Of Exemption Of Rs.1,65,52,344.00 Claimed U/S 54F On Return Of Income. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A)(Nfac) In Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Is Not Justified To Confirm Addition Of Rs.7,38,588.00 Made U/S 56(2)(Vii) 3. For That The Appellant Reserves His Right To Add To, To Alter, To Amend The Grounds & To Adduce Paper & Document At The Time Of Hearing.”

property. Therefore, because of the aforesaid technical compulsions, the house was constructed first and then transferred in the name of the assessee. However, the construction was made out of the investment of the assessee, which was not disputed. The ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that since the provisions of section 54F

PRASHANT SHARMA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 22(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

54F of the Act instead of Section 54 of the Act. In this context we have perused cited decisions and find that the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Pune in the case of Anirudha Ashok Jajoo (supra) has held as under: “Section 54, read with section 54D, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Profit on sale of property used

GOPAL KUNDU ROY,SILIGURI vs. ITO, WARD 1(3),, SILIGURI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2263/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Gopal Kundu Roy,……………………………….…Appellant ‘Hare Krishna Bhawan’, P.O. Rabindra Sarani, Rathkhola Bazar, Siliguri-734006, West Bengal [Pan:Acgpr0359H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-1(3), Siliguri, Aayakar Bhawan, Paribahan Nagar, Matigara, Dist. Darjeeling-734010, W.B.

house property. Due claim for exemption for investment in building for Rs.15,00,000/- had been made in the return. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act by the ld. Assessing Officer on 17.08.2015 and the ld. Assessing Officer had sent intimation of the assessee through Post on India Government Service. The ld. Assessing Officer observed

SAKTI DASGUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.110/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Sakti Dasgupta………..……………....................…...……………....Appellant Sakti Dasgupta Gd 277, Salt Lake, Kolkata – 700106. [Pan: Acrpd0675M] Vs. Acit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata.…………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Puja Somani, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 05, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 31, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Sole Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Relating To The Quantum Of Deduction Allowable To The Assessee U/S 54F Of The Act On Account Of Purchase Of New Residential House.

section 54F to the assessee, mainly because of the assessee is an old aged lady, has included the name of his daughter in the purchase deed who is the only legal heir and life support in their old age. We find that the issue is squarely covered by the various decisions of Hon'ble High Courts including that

KALYAN PAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-40(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 708/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Kalyan Pal,…………………………………..……….Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No. 203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aacpp5347B] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………...…Respondent Ward-40(1), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West). Council House Street, 1St Floor, Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Loviesh Shelley, Jcit, D.R. Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 07, 2024 O R D E R

property. The assessee has adopted the figure after availing the benefit of indexation, which has not been given by the ld. Assessing Officer. He further contended that the assessee has claimed deduction under section 54F of the Income Tax Act, which has not been dealt with by the ld. Assessing Officer. 7. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, submitted

GOUTAM GHOSH,HOWRAH vs. P.C.I.T., KOLKATA - 13, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

property being land or building or both.]” Therefore, the order of the Assessing Authority, being no erroneous, your Honor has no jurisdiction to revise the same under the grab of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 263 cannot be invoked for adding Stamp Value under JDA where taxation is triggered after completion

ACHHELAL YADAV,DANKUNI vs. ITO, WARD-23(1),HOOGHLY. , HOOGHLY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 844/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Achhelal Yadav Income Tax Officer, Ward- 23(1), G/4/3, Phase-Ii, Dankuni Housing Vs Hooghly Complex P.O. Dankuni West Bengal - 712331 [Pan: Aakpy3403B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/10/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 17/07/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Ao Passed U/S 154 When In Fact The Entire Sold Lands Were Rural Agriculture Lands & Thus The Said Lands Do Not Come Under The Purview Of The Definition Of Capital Asset As Provided Under Section 2(14)(Iii) & Thus The Entire Calculation Of Capital Gain On Sale Of Rural Agriculture Land Was Illegal, Wrong & Without Any Sanction Of Law. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ao By Invoking The Provision Of Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act Since The Mistake, Which Was Sought To Be Rectified By The Ao, Was Not A Mistake Apparent From The Record As Prescribed Under Section 154. 2

property used for residence and cannot apply on the case of the assessee where agricultural land has been sold. The ld. Assessing Officer also observed that even Section 54F of the Act cannot be applied because the same pertains to capital gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house

RAVI MODI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2),, KOLKATA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

house as ascertained from the verification report of the departmental Inspector and therefore deduction claimed u/s 54 of the Act should have been at Rs. 23,03,35,491/- and should have been disallowed. The Ld. PCIT observed that the AO has not examined and verified the issue in the assessment proceedings thereby rendering the assessment framed

SHILPI MODI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2),, KOLKATA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

house as ascertained from the verification report of the departmental Inspector and therefore deduction claimed u/s 54 of the Act should have been at Rs. 23,03,35,491/- and should have been disallowed. The Ld. PCIT observed that the AO has not examined and verified the issue in the assessment proceedings thereby rendering the assessment framed

JYOTI JHA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT (IT), CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 225/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jyoti Jha Acit(It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata Kalani & Co. Chartered Accountants Vs 5Th Floor, Milestone Building Gandhinagar Turn Tonk Road Jaipur - 302015 [Pan : Aezpj7440J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Fca Revenue By : Shri Sunil Kr. Agarwala, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/08/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/10/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel – 2, New Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Drp”) Dt. 05/12/2022, Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Ld. Ao Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Assessing The Income Under The Head Capital Gain At Rs.41,46,0917- As Against Nil Income Declared By The Assessee On The Basis Of Direction Of Drp Ignoring That The Amount Of Capital Gain Has Been Invested In Purchase Of Flat Before The Time Available For Filing The Return U/S 139 & Thus Eligible For Deduction U/S 54 Of The Act Even If The Sale Deed Was Executed Subsequently. He Has Further Erred In Observing That Assessee Has Failed To Produce Documentary Evidence In Support Of Claim Ignoring That The Same Was Filed Before The Drp. 2. The Ld. Ao Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Making Addition Of Rs. 7,41,700/- In Respect Of Cash Deposit In The Bank Account U/S 68 Of The Act As Per The Direction Of Drp. He Has Further Erred In Holding That Assessee Failed To Produce Documentary Evidence In Support Of Averments In The Affidavit.

Section 54F of the Act has been made by the assessee and the sale consideration received from the property situated at Jharkhand has been applied for purchase of a flat at Gurgaon. The assessee has fulfilled the conditions prescribed u/s 54F of the Act and thus is eligible to claim deduction at Rs.41,55,508/-. We thus, fail to find

SRI RAMKRISHNA GHOSH,MEDINIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-27(1), HALDIA, HALDIA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

properties and earned capital gains of Rs.43,36,221/- against which claimed a deduction of the same amount u/s. 54F of the Act. In order to substantiate the claim, assessee submitted the list of expenses 3 Sri Ramkrishna Ghosh, AY 2014-15 incurred on various items for the construction of residential building. However, Ld. AO disallowed the claim by holding

ALOK KUMAR CHAMRIA (HUF),KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 32(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.1487/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Alok Kumar Chamria (Huf)…………........………………....Appellant 25E Chamria House, Shakespeare Sarani, 3Rd Floor, W.B. – 700017. [Pan: Aafha4854F] Vs. Ito, Ward-32(3), Kolkata.….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Mrs. Saswati Mitra (Dutta), Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Pradip Kr. Biswas, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 19, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 29, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.04.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 03.08.2017 By Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.12,14,280/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act & Refund Of Rs.26,980/- Was Issued. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued Requiring The Assessee To Furnish Specific Details. The Assessee Submitted Responses & Uploaded Documents Periodically. During The Scrutiny Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Observed That The Assessee Had Declared Long-Term Capital Gain (‘Ltcg’) From The Sale Of Immovable Property. The Assessing Officer Noted That Sale Consideration For Seven Flats As Per Sale Deed Was Lower Than The Stamp Duty Value. He Invoked

House, Shakespeare Sarani, 3rd Floor, W.B. – 700017. [PAN: AAFHA4854F] vs. ITO, Ward-32(3), Kolkata.….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances by: Mrs. Saswati Mitra (Dutta), Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Pradip Kr. Biswas, Addl. CIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : November 19, 2024 Date of pronouncing the order : November 29, 2024 आदेश / ORDER