ZAFAR IQBAL,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

house property on 29.3.2017 for a total cost of Rs.3,13,62,500/- as per details furnished herein below. The assessee had offered a long term capital gains of Rs.76,22,276/- in his return of income instead of his actual liability of Rs.44,63,518/- only as per provisions of section 54F of the Income

SHALINI AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-45(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 54F in respect of cost of construction of residential house property afresh in the light of the additional evidence filed by the assessee. Grounds No. 1

SMT.BARNALI DHAR,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-34, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Barnali Dhar Acit, Circle-34, Kolkata C/O. S.D. Verma, Advocate, 2Nd Floor, 7, Vs. Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. Pan: Ajppd 6989 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Acit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short ‘A.Y.’) 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 10, Kolkata Dated 30.07.2019 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(In Short ‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2017. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)- 10 Was Not Justified In Not Deleting A Sum Of Rs. 9933057/- Being The Amount Wrongly Included By The Appellant Under The Head Capital Gain, While Filing Return Of Income Whereas As Per Section 54F No Amount Is Liable To Be Taxed. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add/Alter Or Modify Any Grounds Of Appeal At Hearing Stage.”

house property, the whole of the capital gains, even though worked out in terms of section 50C of the Act, would be eligible for deduction under section 54F of the Act and the assessee is not liable to pay any capital gains tax. 10. To appreciate the issue under consideration, we refer to the provisions of section 54F which reads

SMT. NILANJANA CHAKRABORTI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 22, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Nilanjana Chakraborti…………..………...........…………..……………….…...……..….…….....Appellant 99B, Kankulia Road Kolkata – 700 029 [Pan : Acupc 49992 P] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-22, Kolkata.……......………………..........Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 16Th , 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 9Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 03/08/2017, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14, On The Following Grounds:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding The Erroneous Determination Of Long Term Capital Gain At Rs.72,50,000/- By Ld. Dcit On Erroneous Belief & Misconception Of Law By Denying The Benefit Claimed U/S 54F Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Of The Appellant. 2. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Adduce Or Alter Any Ground Or Grounds On Or Before The Hearing Of The Appeal.”

house property. Though, the full value of consideration as defined u/s. 50C of the Act is more than the net sale consideration as referred in section 54F(1

SHRI JAGDISH RAI KARNANI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 35(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal was answered in favour of assessee

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.594/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sri Jagdish Rai Karnani -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-35(2) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Afapk 1013 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri B.C.Jain, Fca For The Respondent : None Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

1,06,27,317 3.3. The ld AO observed that the assessee was not eligible for any deduction u/s 54 or 54F of the Act from the aforesaid Short Term Capital Gains and hence he was directed to show cause as to why the Short Term Capital Gain (STCG) on sale of House Property at Plot H-33 , Sector

ACIT, CIR-I, SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. MRS HARMEET KAUR, SILIGURI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1482/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-12 A.C.I.T., Cir-1, -Vs- Mrs. Harmeet Kaur Siliguri (Pan : Afupk 9262 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : G. Mallikarjuna, Cit, Dr For The Respondent : Shri Subhash Agarwal, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2017 Order

property and claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act. We find that the provisions of section 54F of the Act are as below:- Section 54F – Capital gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house (1

SHRI VIJAY MAHIPAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 502/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vijay Mahipal -Vs- Ito, Ward-4(4), Kolkata [Pan: Aekpm 9834 J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

1) of the Act. It is not in dispute that the assessee purchased land for construction of a residential house. The date of the purchase is 29.07.2004. The consideration paid by the assessee for purchase of the property was Rs.3,50,000/-. The assessee had paid stamp duty and registration charges of Rs.31,839/-. The CIT(A) treated the investment

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]

house within the period stipulated in Section 54F(1), if the assessee wants the benefit of Section 54F, then he should deposit the said capital gains in an account which is duly notified by the Central Government. In other words if he want of claim exemption from payment of income tax by retaining the cash, then the said amount

DCIT, CIR-1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. SMT JENNIFER CHAKRABORTY, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (in ITA No

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit, Circle-1, Siliguri Vs. Smt. Jennifer Chakraborty St. Michael’S School, 2Nd Mile, Sevoke Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Paribahan Nagar, Matigra, Siliguri, Pin-734010. Siliguri "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acppc 9278 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have allowed the deduction u/s 54 of the Act amounting to Rs.22,87,429/- against capital gains arising out of sale of flats. 2. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought

JENNIFFER CHAKRAVARTY,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIR-3, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (in ITA No

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit, Circle-1, Siliguri Vs. Smt. Jennifer Chakraborty St. Michael’S School, 2Nd Mile, Sevoke Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Paribahan Nagar, Matigra, Siliguri, Pin-734010. Siliguri "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acppc 9278 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have allowed the deduction u/s 54 of the Act amounting to Rs.22,87,429/- against capital gains arising out of sale of flats. 2. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought

KUSUMLATA SONTHALIA ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1151/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

section 54F of the Act are enclosed herewith and marked as perAnnexure-F." 5.3 From the above submission, it is clear that the issue whether the booking of flat made by the assessee with Sahara Grace, Gurgaon in F.Y.2003-04 was for construction of flat or was for purchase of ready built house, had never been under his consideration

SMT SAKI GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of both the assessee’s are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

house for claiming exemption u/s 54F, the assessee had purchased three storied building for Rs.47,60,000/-. Such purchase was completed on 28.07.2010. In the impugned order the AO referring to the provisions of Section 54F observed that the property was purchased beyond the prescribed period of two years and therefore denied the benefit claimed by the assessee u/s 54F

SMT SARBANI GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of both the assessee’s are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

house for claiming exemption u/s 54F, the assessee had purchased three storied building for Rs.47,60,000/-. Such purchase was completed on 28.07.2010. In the impugned order the AO referring to the provisions of Section 54F observed that the property was purchased beyond the prescribed period of two years and therefore denied the benefit claimed by the assessee u/s 54F

SRI BASUDEB SENGUPTA,BURDWAN vs. A.C.I.T CIR - 3,ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

property as appeared in the balance-sheet. I.T.A. Nos. 2046 & 2047/KOL./2013 Assessment years: 2006-2007 & 2007-2008 Page 3 of 5 4. Against the orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) for both the years under consideration, appeals were preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) challenging the action of the Assessing Officer

MAMTA ANCHALIA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-32, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

house property on the date of sale of silver utensils. It was contended that the assessee thus was entitled for exemption under section 54F and the A.O. was not justified in disallowing the said exemption. The Ld. CIT(A) did not find merit in this contention raised on behalf of the assessee and proceeded to confirm the disallowance made

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

1. 2. 3. 4. Amount Invested Purchased of Land Architect Fees Deposit in Capital Gains Account Scheme Total deduction claimed u/s 54 of the Act, Amount (Rs.) 2,80,70,000 5,72,500 2,60,10,000 5,46,52,500 4.1. The Id. AO further noted that the assessee made payment of ₹2,80,70,000/- to Bangalore

AMIT PAREKH,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-30(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

property, he had borrowed housing loan and started construction on the site belonging to him. After the sale, the amount spent towards construction of the house is more than the consideration received by the sale of agricultural land and therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of section 54F of the Act." 19. In the present case, the investment made

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

1,06,07,936/- was not available. The same was affirmed by the ld. CIT (A) for the same reasons. However, we note that though the assessee has entered into an agreement to purchase of new property on 12.03.2014 no payments were made under that agreement. The assessee claimed the benefit u/s 54F of the Act only in respect