INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. SHERIAR PHIROJSHA IRANI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowance of deduction claimed by the assessee under section 54F of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case

SHWETA SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD 33(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

54F of the Act to the tune of Rs. 61,65,546 was disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. Shweta Singh ITA no.3528/Mum./2023 8. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the disallowance made by the AO under section

KISHORE ANAND SHETTY,GOREGAON EAST MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 32(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in terms indicated above

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

54F is allowed as above, while the ground relating to short-term capital gain was dismissed as not pressed. Penalty Appeal – ITA No. 4976/Mum/2025 32. We now take up the penalty appeal, wherein penalty under section 271(1)(c) has been levied on the additions/disallowances made in the quantum assessment, namely, the addition under section 50C and the disallowance

ZAINUL ABEDIN GHASWALA,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Zainul Abedin Ghaswala, Cit(A), Nfac, At 142/148, Ghaswala Estate Pratyakshakarbhavan, C- S.V. Road, Jogeshwari (West), Vs. 13, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400102. Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Afnpg 7463 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sunil M. Makhija– Advocate Revenue By : Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, Dr : Date Of Hearing 04/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2023 Order

disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 54F of the Act against the capital gain on transfer of long term the Act against the capital gain on transfer of long term the Act against the capital gain on transfer of long term capital asset, on the ground that the assessee owned interest in n the ground that

KISHORE ANAND SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE-32(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are\nallowed in terms indicated above

54F is allowed as above, while the ground relating to\nshort-term capital gain was dismissed as not pressed.\nPenalty Appeal – ITA No. 4976/Mum/2025\n32. We now take up the penalty appeal, wherein penalty\nunder section 271(1)(c) has been levied on the\nadditions/disallowances made in the quantum assessment,\nnamely, the addition under section 50C and the disallowance

DEEPA PAMNANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 20(1)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Ms. Deepa Pamnani Vs. The Income Tax Officer Pamnanai Hospital & Ward 20(1)(1) Research Center Piramal Chamber 33 Cf +6Qc , Railway Station Lal Baug Road, Prem Colony, Mandasur Mumbai 400012 Madhya Pradesh 458001 Pan Cstpp4472L (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akepg6370P Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah Ca & Mr. Kapil Jain Ca Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2024 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Am:

section 54F of The Act. In view of this the learned AO disallowed the claim under section 54F and passed

NAKUL AGGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-24(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt.Renu Jauhri ()

Disallowance of exemption claimed under section 54F of the Act 3. The learned CIT(A)/AO have failed to appreciate

ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NAKUL AGGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt.Renu Jauhri ()

Disallowance of exemption claimed under section 54F of the Act 3. The learned CIT(A)/AO have failed to appreciate

SONIA PATHAK KHANNA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Income Tax Officer, Sonia Pathak Khanna, Ward 25(1)(2) Flat No.14, 5Th Floor, Room No. 204, 2Nd Floor, Kodinar, Model Town, Off Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- J.P. Road, Four Bungalows, 43 Vs. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 G Block, Bandra Kurla 053 Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai-051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpp6359C Assessee By : Shri K Gopal, Ar : Shri R.R. Makwana, Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing: 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2024

Disallowance of an exemption u/s 54F of the Act is unjustified. 4. The NFAC has erred in denying the benefit of an exemption u/s 54F of the Act without appreciating that all the conditions precedent to claim the benefit of section

KHALID SAYED ,DELHI vs. CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTER , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

section. 8. Also, reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Leena J. Shah v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(1), Baroda in ITA No. 2467 (AHD.) OF 2000 for the Asst. Year 1998-99 dated 10.11.2005, where the benefit of exemption us 54F was disallowed

ABDUL RAHIM SULEMAN GHASWALA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 41(4)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Abdul Rahim Suleman Ghaswala, Dcit-41(4)(1), 142/148, Ghaswala Estate, Sv Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Road, Jogeshwari (West)-400102 Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East)-400051. Pan No. Aalpg 9087 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. S.M. Makhija Revenue By : Mr. A.S. Sant, Sr. Dr : Date Of Hearing 27/12/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 01/01/2024

disallowance of exemption claimed u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act (the Act) to the tune of Rs.3 crores. 2. The assessee is an individual and filed the return of income for assessment year 2016-17 declaring total income of Abdul Rahim Suleman Ghaswala 2 Abdul Rahim Suleman Ghaswala Rs.5,43,56,720/-. The case was selected for scrutiny

SUNIL MOHANLAL LAHORI,MUMBAI vs. DY COMM OF INCOMT TAX -22(1) (CURRENT JURIDICTION), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sunil Mohanlal Lahori, Dy. Cit-22(1), 9, Janta Industrial Income Tax Office, Piramal Compound, 162 Senapati Vs. Chambers, Lalbaug, Bapat Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai-400012. (West), Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaapl 4422 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Himanshu Gandhi Revenue By : Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, Dr : Date Of Hearing 04/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/05/2023 Order

disallowance of deduction under section 54F of Income Tax e of deduction under section 54F of Income Tax e of deduction

SIDDHARTH BHASKER SHAH,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 27, MUMBAI ( NAVI MUMBAI)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA No. 2169/MUM/2025\nAssessment Year: 2021-22\nSiddharth Bhasker Shah\n803 Indraprastha Neelkanth valley,\nRajwadi, Gghatkopar east,\nMumbai - 400077\n(PAN: BIGPS6015Q)\n(Appellant)\nVs.\nPrinciple Commissioner of\nIncome Tax- 27,\nNavi Mumbai\n(Respondent)\nPresent for:\nAssessee\nRevenue\n: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, CA\n: Shri Satyaprakash R.Singh, CIT DR\nDate of Hearing\n: 07.08.2025\nDate of Pronouncement\

section 54F.\nAccording to him, the sole intention of assessee is to avoid payment of\ntax by converting six separate dwelling units into one residential house\nand claim the inflated deduction u/s.54F. Thus, according to him, ld.\nAssessing Officer has failed to properly examine the issue which has\nrendered the assessment order erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to\nthe

DCIT-17(1), MUMBAI, ROOM NO. , KAUTILYA BHAWAN vs. CHANDRAPRAKASH MUKUTBIHARI GUPTA, GROUND FLOOR, MOHAMMED BLDG.,

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallowed since 2 Assessment Year 2016-2017 the above said deduction was available in case of sale of residential property and not for sale of tenancy rights. In reply to the said notice, the Assessee claimed deduction under Section 54F

DHIRAJKUMAR SOHANLAL THUKRAL ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y : 2013-14 Dhirajkumar Sohanlal Thukral Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income 33/34, Garden View Apartment, Tax, Circle 17(1) Mumbai. Road No. 29, Sion (E), (Respondent) Mumbai 400 022. Pan : Aabpt5208Q (Appellant)

54F of the Act to only one residential flat which was valued at Rs.70,42,384/-. 3 Dhirajkumar Sohanlal Thukral 6. Be that as it may, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of cost of land as made by the assessee and also further disallowed the deduction under Section

KENNETH M. MISQUITTA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, 25(2)(5), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Disallowance under section 54 – Ground No.3 11. During the year under consideration, the assessee had claimed Rs. 36,00,000/- as deduction under section 54F

CHERYL OSCAR PEREIRA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 13(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

section 54 & 54F on sale of 3 properties and share against buying one property. So the Ld.AO disallowed the exemption

GOPALKRISHNA PANDU SHETTY,MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 32(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI, MAHRASHTRA

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 54F of the Act in respect of a residential house property purchases of an assessee in the name of his wife. The aforesaid decision was followed by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bhagwan Swaroop Pathak Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(3), Gurgaon, Haryana : [ITA No. 2754/Del/2019, dated 05/03/2020]. Reliance was also placed