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

disallowance made by the AO under section 54F of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 9. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. The only issue which arises for our consideration, in the present case, is whether joint ownership of more than one residential house shall disentitle

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)

disallowance of exemption claimed under section 54F amounting to ₹1,12,30,723/-. 3. At the outset, it is noted that the ground relating to short-term capital gain of ₹19,06,317/- was expressly not pressed by the learned counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing. The same is accordingly dismissed as not pressed. 4

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

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:

disallowance of exemption under section 54F of the act. The learned CIT appeal went further ahead and held that the capital gain earned by the assessee on sale of shares is also required to be added as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the income tax act 1961 as the assessee has failed to give any explanation about

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

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 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

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

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

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

disallowing deduction of Rs. 36 Lakhs claimed by the appellant u/s. 54F. 3.1) The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that as the appellant has not purchased a new residential house but only acquired perpetual tenancy, deduction u/s. 54F was not allowable. 3.2) The Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that a 'Perpetual Tenant' enjoys all the rights

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

54F was disallowed for a residential house purchased/constructed outside India. 4 Khalid Sayed 9. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that the CPC, AO is justified in disallowing the TDS claim of the appellant. The same is hereby confirmed. Thus Grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 of the appellant are dismissed

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

disallowed the exemption under section 54 & 54F to the extent of Rs.6,26,33,404/- in the manner the rejection of exemption under section 54 amount to Rs.2,21,37,945/- and partial rejection under section 54F, the amount of Rs.4,04,95,459/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) upheld

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)

disallowed the deduction under Section 54F of the Act as claimed by the assessee and by restricting the deduction under Section 54F of the Act to Rs.70,42,384/- has recomputed the capital gains as under :- “5.9 Hence the Capital Gain that should have been offered for taxation is calculated as below : Sale Consideration Rs. 5,72,84,000/- Less

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 under section 54F of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. 3. On the facts

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\

4. From the above details, ld. Assessing Officer observed that\nassessee had invested in multiple flats in the project “APAS VALMARK”\nand has claimed investment of Rs 16,83,33,702/- in these six flats as\ndeduction u/s.54F in his return. According to him, provisions of\nsection 54F do not allow such a claim made by the assessee of making

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 of the Act. It was submitted on behalf of the Assessee that the tenancy rights were held by the Assessee

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

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

4 had allowed the claim of deduction under 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

RAVI SHROFF,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 25(3), MUMBAI, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI

In the result, all remaining ground are allowed with the aforesaid directions

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

disallowed by AO, on the ground that she owned more than one residential house, but of appeal before CIT(A) she was allowed relief of deduction under section 54F and further appeal by revenue before Tribunal was dismissed in ITA No 416/Ahd/2019, facts remained the same that she was allowed capital gain. Thus, the assessee cannot be treated indifferently