INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(3)(5), MUMBAI vs. NILIMA ABHIJIT TANNU, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri G. Manjunatha, Am

disallowance of Rs. 82,89,448/- on account of exemption u/s. 54F of the IT Act. Further the legislature would not have emphasized that such deposit being made in any case later than the due date applicable in the case of the assessee for furnishing the return of income under sub section 1

VAIJANTHI MAHAVIR OZA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT)-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Vaijanthi Mahavir Oza, Income Tax Officer- C/O. Chhajed & Doshi, (International Taxation)- 101, Hubtown Solaris, 3(3)(1) V. N.S Phadke Marg, Room No. 1628, Near East West Flyover, 16Th Floor Andheri (E), Air India Building Mumbai- 400069 Mumbai स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Abepo5631J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Piyush Chhajjed Revenue By: Miss. Deepika Arora (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 5799/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 23.06.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2014-15. I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017

disallowing the claim on the basis of the following: i. By making a reference to section 1 of the Act which relates to Short title, extent and commencement of the Act and mentions that the Act extends to the whole of India. The AO's view is that the assessee cannot claim benefit of section 54 for purchase of residential

ITO WD 3(4), THANE vs. UMA DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainincome Tax Officer-3(4) M/S. Uma Developers 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Shop No. 2, Mayur Chs Ltd. Vs. Road No. 16Z, Wagle Indl. M.G. Road, Naupada Estate, Thane (W) 400601 Thane (W) - 400602 Pan - Aabfu8250F Appellant Respondent

54F also came before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT V/s Jagruti Agarwal (339 ITR 610) (P&H) and it was held that subsection (4) of section 139 has to be read along with sub-section (1) of section 139 and therefore due date for ,furnishing the return of income according to section

ACIT 28 (2), MUMBAI vs. SMT. PUNITA SANJAY BIDRA , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-28(2), Smt. Punita Sanjay Bindra, Room No. 307, 3Rd Floor, Tower 505-506, Kesar Solitaire, 5Th Vs. No. 6, Vashi Railway Station Floor, Sanpada, Plot No. 5, Complex, Vashi, Sector-19, Navi Mumbai-400703. Navi Mumbai-400705. Pan No. Acspb 2454 M Appellant Respondent

1 to 3 of the appeal are related to the issue of 3 of the appeal are related to the issue of disallowance of deduction under section 54 deduction under section 54F

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

ITO WARD - 1(3), THANE, THANE vs. KALPANA PRADEEP AMBRE, THANE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Smt. Kalpana Pradeep Ward-1(3), Ambre, बनाम/ Room No.10, 6Th Floor, 1801, Pristine Vasant Lawns, Vs. Ashar It Park, B-Wing, Pokhran Road No.2, Wagle Indl. Estate, Majiwada, Thane(W)-400604 Thane(W) (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aafpc0868D

disallowance to Rs.4,55,204/-. The Revenue is aggrieved and is in appeal before this Tribunal. With this factual matrix, now we shall analyze the section 54F of the Act, which is reproduced hereunder:- “Capital gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house. 54F. (1

SHALINI ANAND MURTHY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the Act. Shalini Anand Murthy 2 ITA 2404/Mum/2019 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in On the facts and circumstances of the case and in On the facts and circumstances

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

disallowance of deduction claimed by the assessee under section 54F of the Act. 6. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee is an individual and during the year under consideration derived income from house property and income from other sources. The assessee filed her return of income on 30/07/2013

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

1. The Ld. AO has erred in disallowing exemption claimed u/s 54F of the I.T. Act amounting to Rs. 2,60,00,000/- without appreciating the facts of the case as well law. Zainul Abedin Ghaswala Zainul Abedin Ghaswala 2 ITA No. No. 545/M/2023 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating the fact

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 pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee is an individual. During the assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee sold the following two properties and claimed the deduction under section 54F

MANOJ TEKRIWAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 24(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowance for claim of set off of current year speculation profit of Rs.27,85,009/- against the brought forward business loss from AY 2009– 10. 9. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in laws and in facts in charging the interest u/s 234A, 234B and. 234C of the Act.‖ 5. During the course of hearing, at the outset, learned Authorised

FARHAN MAKKI PETTIWALA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Farhan Makki Pettiwala Assistant Commissioner B-102, Bianca, Panch Marg Of Income Tax - 24(1) 402, Yari Road, Next To Ashoka Vs. Mumbai Towers, Andheri (W) Mumbai 400061 Pan - Aacpp2204P Appellant Respondent

54F of the Act to the Appellant. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-34 has erred in disallowing an amount of Rs.2,56,495/- under section 14A of the Act. 3. The consequent interest and penalty demanded under section 271(1

VINOD K SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

disallowing deductions, allowance or relief. 2.4.6 The intimation under section 143(1)(a ) is given without prejudice to the provisions of section 143(2). Though technically the intimation issued was deemed to be a demand notice issued under section 156, that did not per se preclude the right of the Assessing Officer to proceed under section 143(2). That right

VINOD K.SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

disallowing deductions, allowance or relief. 2.4.6 The intimation under section 143(1)(a ) is given without prejudice to the provisions of section 143(2). Though technically the intimation issued was deemed to be a demand notice issued under section 156, that did not per se preclude the right of the Assessing Officer to proceed under section 143(2). That right

ITO 16(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. SHASHANKA GHOSH, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-16(1)(4), Vs Shri Shashanka Ghosh, Room No.438, 4Th Floor, C-701, Jay Bharat Chs Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Off. Yari Road,Near Amarnath M. K. Road, Tower, Varsova Andher (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400061 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Acwpg5915E

disallowed the claimed exemption under section 54 of the Act on the plea that the assessee did not enter into an agreement for purchase and did not receive possession of the flat within stipulated period. On appeal, before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), the claim of the assessee was allowed which is under challenge before this Tribunal

SMT.MANJU MAHENDRA GOYAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Manju Mahendra Goyal Income Tax Officer-19(2)(3), A/802, Surya Apartments, Room No.2018, Matru बनाम/ 53, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mandir, Tardeo Road, Vs. Mumbai-400026 Mumbai-400007 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aafpg2990N

1) of section 54F and the Board Circular No. 667, dated October 18, 1993 ([1993] 204 ITR (St.) 103), clearly stated that the purchase/construction is to be completed within stipulated time is not mandatory for claiming exemption under the Act?" We have heard the argument of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record. There

AMIRALI AKBARALI ENGINEER,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 24(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Amirali Akbarali Engineer, Vs Acit, A/201, Senha Apna Ghar, Ward-24(1), Unit No.11, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Swami Samarth Nagar, Mumbai Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacpe9331N

1-4-1993.]] Later vide Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01/04/2015, section 54F was amended and a word ‘a residential house’ was substituted with ‘one residential house’. 2.7. If the aforesaid section is analyzed section 54/54F uses the expression 'a residential house' as was 24 Amirali Akbarali Engineer applicable during the impugned Assessment Year. The expression used is not 'a residential

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 that purchase of one residential house with modifications of two adjacent properties would amount to single residential house and therefore, the Appellant was eligible for exemption under section 54F of the Act. 4. The Ld. AO has erred